Jose J. Trevino v. Bank of America, N.A.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jose J. Trevino v. Bank of America, N.A.

DecidedAugust 19, 2004

Docket13-04-00129-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Jose J. Trevino v. Bank of America, N.A. (Jose J. Trevino v. Bank of America, 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

Jose J. Trevino v. Bank of America, N.A., (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-129-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

JOSE J. TREVINO, Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Cameron County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, JOSE J. TREVINO, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order of dismissal entered by County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2000-CCL-900-C. The order of dismissal in this cause was signed on August 30, 2002. A timely motion to set aside dismissal and to reinstate was filed on September 23, 2002. The order setting aside dismissal and reinstating was not signed until January 6, 2003. The Court’s plenary power in this matter expired on December 13, 2002. Accordingly, any orders or judgments entered afer December 13, 2002, are void. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on September 30, 2002, but was not filed until February 26, 2004.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 19th day of August, 2004.

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

NUMBER 13-04-129-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

JOSE J. TREVINO, Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Cameron County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, JOSE J. TREVINO, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order of dismissal entered by County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2000-CCL-900-C. The order of dismissal in this cause was signed on August 30, 2002. A timely motion to set aside dismissal and to reinstate was filed on September 23, 2002. The order setting aside dismissal and reinstating was not signed until January 6, 2003. The Court’s plenary power in this matter expired on December 13, 2002. Accordingly, any orders or judgments entered afer December 13, 2002, are void. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on September 30, 2002, but was not filed until February 26, 2004.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 19th day of August, 2004.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jose J. Trevino v. Bank of America, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-j-trevino-v-bank-of-america-na-texapp-2004.