Maria Antionetta Bergia v. Victor Bergia

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 5, 2011
• Docket: 07-10-00510-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-10-00510-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAY 5, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARIA ANTONIETTA BERGIA, APPELLANT

v.

VICTOR BERGIA, APPELLEE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2010-550,438; HONORABLE RUBEN GONZALES REYES, JUDGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Maria Antonietta Bergia, filed a notice of appeal of an order granting appellee, Victor Bergia, summary judgment. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. On August 11, 2010, the trial court signed an Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, which dismissed Maria's claims with prejudice. On September 10, 2010, Maria timely filed a motion for new trial. The clerk's record does not contain an order on Maria's motion, so it appears that Maria's motion was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). Maria filed notice of appeal in the trial court on December 15, 2010. By letter dated April 15, 2011, we notified Maria that her notice of appeal appears to have been untimely filed, and that it was not filed within 15 days of the date that it was due. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997). As such, we directed Maria to file a written response explaining why the notice of appeal was filed late, or why appellant believes it was timely filed on or before April 25, 2011. We additionally informed Maria that failure to comply with the Court's directive may result in dismissal of her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c). To date, Maria has not responded to our directive and has not identified how her notice of appeal was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, we now dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and for Maria's failure to comply with a directive of this Court. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c).

Mackey K. Hancock Justice