Gerardo Alberto Castillo Cobos v. Tres Mundos Investments, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 8, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00333-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00333-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

GERARDO ALBERTO CASTILLO COBOS, Appellant,

v.

TRES MUNDOS INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 476TH DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion for extension of time file notice

of appeal. This cause is also before the Court on appellant’s recent correspondence from

appellant entitled “Notice of Appeal” which is construed as an amended notice of appeal. On June 24, 2024, appellant filed his original notice, attempting to appeal the trial court’s

May 7, 2024 judgment. On July 22, 2024, appellant filed the motion now before the Court,

and on July 30, 2024, appellant filed his amended notice of appeal.

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed more

than fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and was thus untimely.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably

and liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely

necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615,

616–17 (Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our

jurisdiction by enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not

provided for by rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–

Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, and appellant’s motion for extension of

time to file the notice of appeal was also untimely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction

over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251,

260 (Tex. 2022) (“[T]he lack of a timely notice of appeal is the most fundamental

procedural error that can lead to a total loss—and that is because the absence of a timely

notice of appeal prevents the appellate court from ever exercising jurisdiction in the first

place.” (emphasis omitted)). Furthermore, appellant’s amended notice of appeal is late

2 and does not otherwise cure the defect. Accordingly, we dismiss both the motion and the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice

Delivered and filed on the 8th day of August, 2024.