in Re Order of Foreclosure Concerning 3713 Martz Lane, McAllen, TX 78504

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 7, 2014
• Docket: 13-14-00414-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-14-00414-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN RE ORDER OF FORECLOSURE CONCERNING 3713 MARTZ LANE, MCALLEN, TX 78504 ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Victor Gutierrez, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order granting

expedited foreclosure under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. Upon review of the

documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken

was not an appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so

that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

The order on appeal granted the home equity foreclosure application filed by

appellees pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. Rule 736.8(c) states that an

order granting or denying an application under Rule 736 “is not subject to a motion for

rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c). Consequently,

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. In re Casterline, No. 13-13-00708-CV, 2014 WL

217285, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding); In re

Dominguez, 416 S.W.3d 700, 708 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, orig. proceeding); see

Grant–Brooks v. FV–1, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 933, 933 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)

(interpreting predecessor rule).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's response, is

of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 30th day of October, 2014.