Eloy Soto Cavazos v. Antonia Aracenia Cavazos Gonzalez

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 5, 2025
Docket04-24-00825-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Eloy Soto Cavazos v. Antonia Aracenia Cavazos Gonzalez (Eloy Soto Cavazos v. Antonia Aracenia Cavazos Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eloy Soto Cavazos v. Antonia Aracenia Cavazos Gonzalez, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

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.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eloy Soto Cavazos v. Antonia Aracenia Cavazos Gonzalez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eloy-soto-cavazos-v-antonia-aracenia-cavazos-gonzalez-texapp-2025.