## NUMBER 13 - 1 6 - 00 358 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ERICELDA CHAVEZ, IND IVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RAFAEL CHAVEZ, SR., DECEASE D, ET AL
. , A ppellants ,
v. WILLIAM R. EDWARDS, THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM AND JO EMMA ARECHIGA , A ppellees
.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 2 8 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant s , Ericelda Chavez, individually and as representative of the Estate of Rafael Chavez Sr., deceased, et al., attempted to perfect an appeal a n from an order2

entered by the 2 8 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 2013

- DCV

2831

- A

. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final, appealable order. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id

. Although a judgment following a trial on the me rits is presumed to be final, there is no such presumption of finality following a summary judgment. See id . at 199

– 200. On July 7, 2016 , t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant s of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 42.3. Appellant s w ere advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of th e notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant s failed to respond to the Court’s notice. On July 18, 2016, appellees, William R. Edwards, The Edwards Law Firm, and Jo Emma Arechiga, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for wan t of jurisdiction on grounds the appeal was untimely , or in the alternative, there is no final, appealable judgment. The trial court entered three summary judgment orders: two on March 20, 2014, and one on May 27, 2014. Pending motions for sanctions fil ed by appellees were not disposed of in the summary judgment orders. Appellants filed their notice of appeal on July 7, 2016. More than ten days have passed since appellees’ motion to dismiss was filed and appellant s ha ve not filed a response. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a).3

The Court, having considered the documents on file , is of the opinion that a final judgme nt was entered on May 27, 2014. See Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith Southern Equip., Inc. , 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. 2000). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants ’ notice of appeal was due on June 26, 2014, but was not filed until July 7, 2016. Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than two years after final judgment , was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction ov er the appeal. On September 21, 2016, appellees filed a second motion to dismiss asserting additional grounds for dismissal based on appellants’ failure to pay filing fees. On July 28, 2016 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant , in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $205.00 filing fee was paid. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(c)

. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $205.00 filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 5, 12.1(b). Accordingly, we GRANT appellees’ motion s to dismiss. The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a),(c).

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 29th day of September , 201 6

.