Robert J. Thweatt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Compay, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8

Court of Appeals of Texas

Robert J. Thweatt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Compay, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 5, 2014·No. 01-14-00261-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 5, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

have elapsed since appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal, and no response has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). We will grant the motion.

On November 27, 2013, appellee applied to the trial court for an order allowing the foreclosure of a home equity lien, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 735, 736.1. On March 24, 2014, the trial court entered a “Home Equity Foreclosure Order,” granting the application. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order on March 31, 2014.

On April 29, 2014, appellee filed its “Amended Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction,” requesting dismissal of this appeal. In the motion, appellee contends that the appeal should be dismissed because Texas Rule of Civil Procedure “736 expressly disallows appeals from orders allowing foreclosure entered under that Rule.”

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.8, “[a]n order granting or denying the application is not subject to a motion for rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal. Any challenge to a Rule 736 order must be made in a suit filed in a separate, independent, original proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c).

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c); Johnson v. Residential Funding Real

Estate Holdings, LLC, No. 01-10-00287-CV, 2011 WL 2418516, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Kelso v. CIT Grp./Consumer Fin., Inc., No. 01-05-00671-CV, 2005 WL 3118182, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re Casterline, No. 13-13-00708-CV, 2014 WL 217285, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (noting that “courts routinely dismissed appeals brought under the predecessor rule” to current Rule 736.8). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

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

Opinion issued June 5, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

have elapsed since appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal, and no response has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). We will grant the motion.

On November 27, 2013, appellee applied to the trial court for an order allowing the foreclosure of a home equity lien, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 735, 736.1. On March 24, 2014, the trial court entered a “Home Equity Foreclosure Order,” granting the application. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(a). Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order on March 31, 2014.

On April 29, 2014, appellee filed its “Amended Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction,” requesting dismissal of this appeal. In the motion, appellee contends that the appeal should be dismissed because Texas Rule of Civil Procedure “736 expressly disallows appeals from orders allowing foreclosure entered under that Rule.”

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.8, “[a]n order granting or denying the application is not subject to a motion for rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal. Any challenge to a Rule 736 order must be made in a suit filed in a separate, independent, original proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c).

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c); Johnson v. Residential Funding Real

Estate Holdings, LLC, No. 01-10-00287-CV, 2011 WL 2418516, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Kelso v. CIT Grp./Consumer Fin., Inc., No. 01-05-00671-CV, 2005 WL 3118182, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re Casterline, No. 13-13-00708-CV, 2014 WL 217285, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (noting that “courts routinely dismissed appeals brought under the predecessor rule” to current Rule 736.8). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

Robert J. Thweatt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Compay, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Robert J. Thweatt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Compay, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8 (Robert J. Thweatt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Compay, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related