Ramon Gonzalez and Eliseo Mata v. Paccar Financial Corp.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 10, 2008
• Docket: 13-07-00595-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-00595-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

RAMON GONZALEZ AND ELISEO MATA, Appellants,

v.

PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP., Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

In this appeal, appellants, Ramon Gonzalez and Eliseo Mata, challenge the trial court's final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Paccar Financial Corp. Because appellants did not timely file their notice of appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The trial court signed its final judgment on May 16, 2007. Appellants timely filed a motion for new trial on June 15, 2007; therefore, their notice of appeal was due by August 15, 2007. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until September 25, 2007.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See id. 25.1(b), 26.3. When a party files a notice of appeal within fifteen days of the deadline, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 permits parties to file a motion for extension of time to file their notice of appeal. See id. 26.3; see Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, a notice of appeal filed outside the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3 will not invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d 617. Appellant's notice of appeal does not invoke this Court's jurisdiction.

On October 4, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were 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. Appellant's response, which includes a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, fails to indicate that our Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants' response to this Court's notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we DENY appellants' motion to extend time. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)(c). Any pending motions are likewise DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 10th day of January, 2008.