Sharon Ross and Norman Ross v. Gonzalo S. Ramirez and Georgie Ann Ramirez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2001
• Docket: 13-01-00387-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-01-387-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

SHARON ROSS AND NORMAN ROSS , Appellants,

v.

GONZALO S. RAMIREZ AND GEORGIE ANN RAMIREZ , Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Hidalgo County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, SHARON ROSS AND NORMAN ROSS , attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-34,359-D . The order denying special appearance in this

cause was signed on March 6, 2001 . Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), appellants' notice of appeal was due on March 26, 2001 , but was not filed until June 4, 2001 . Notice of this defect was given 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. Appellants have filed a motion for extension of time to file supplemental and amended notice of appeal with this Court. Appellants stated in their motion that their motion to determine the date appellants or their attorney first acquired notice in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4) and (5) was set for a hearing on June 27, 2001. The clerk's record in this cause was received on July 10, 2001. Upon inspection of the clerk's record, there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court signed an order as required by Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(c) finding the date when the parties or their attorney first either received notice or acquired actual knowledge that the order was signed.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants' motion for extension of time to file supplemental and amended notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file appellate record, is of the opinion that appellants' motions should be dismissed and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants' motion for extension of time to file supplemental and amended notice of appeal and

motion for extension of time to file appellate record are DISMISSED. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 31^st day of August, 2001 .