Eloy Soto Cavazos v. Antonia Aracenia Cavazos Gonzalez

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00825-CV

Eloy Soto CAVAZOS,

Appellant

v.

Antonia Aracenia CAVAZOS GONZALEZ, et al., Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 10538

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2025 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Prospective appellant Eloy Soto Cavazos attempts to appeal a trial court’s April 2, 1935 order. Because appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 3, 2024, nearly ninety years late, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by January 30, 2025. See id. Appellant responded to our order attaching emails to his response, which appear to provide his ancestor was divested “of any mineral or surface” interest in certain real property in the 1935 case. He explains that his notice of appeal was late because another individual won a case in 2017 “under the name of Andres Cavazos and his heirs” and, while he

04-24-00825-CV

“trusted [the individual] and gave full permission to collect any money from banks for minerals,” he has not heard from those heirs even though they are apparently “already receiving money from minerals.” He states he has sought help from five different lawyers to no avail.

While Appellant sets forth his dispute, he has not shown why this court has jurisdiction to address it. “[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26).

Accordingly, we dismiss this untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM