Maria De Jesus Garcia v. Wilfrido Garcia and the Law Funder, Llc

Opinion

                                       NUMBER 13-09-00608-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MARIA DE JESUS GARCIA,                                                        Appellant,

                                                             v.

WILFRIDO GARCIA AND THE LAW FUNDER, LLC,              Appellees.

                           On appeal from the 449th District Court

                                       of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Maria de Jesus Garcia, attempted to perfect an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the 449th District Court of Hidalgo, County, Texas, in cause no. F-551-05-K.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §51.014(a)(1).  The notice of appeal refers to an order signed on October 9, 2009, which modified an order appointing receivers.  The clerk’s record does not contain an order signed October 9, 2009, and the District Clerk of Hidalgo County informed us that there is no signed order of October 9, 2009.  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.

On March 3, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that she was delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee.  The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter.  See id. 42.3(b),(c).  Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See id.  Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See id. 42.3(a),(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

15th day of July, 2010.