Global Energy Enterprises Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 8, 2024
Docket14-23-00732-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Global Energy Enterprises Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Global Energy Enterprises Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) 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
Global Energy Enterprises Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00732-CV

GLOBAL ENERGY ENTERPRISES INC., Appellant

V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021-18748

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed January 31, 2022. On February 10, 2022, appellant filed a post-judgment motion to vacate, set aside, cancel the judgment, and reopen the case. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed October 04, 2023. The notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the judgment is signed if any party timely files post-judgment motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

On December 6, 2023, notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). On December 27, 2023, appellant’s chief executive officer responded to the dismissal letter. However, the response is not sufficient to establish how this court has jurisdiction1.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.

1 In addition, the response was not filed by a lawyer. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (“Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney.”).

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

Related

Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.
937 S.W.2d 455 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Global Energy Enterprises Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-energy-enterprises-inc-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-texapp-2024.