### NU M BER S 1 3-1 0-0 0346 - CV 13-1 0-00 347- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG
ESTA TE OF C A RM EN DELF IERR O D E GA RC IA , D ECE ASED
On A p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L awN o . 1 of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ch ief Ju sticeVa lde z an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Vela

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam By two interlocu tory app eals, appe llants, Arman do Garcia Carden a s , Ma rav elia Garcia Del Fierro, and Blanca Estella Ga rcia Del Fi erro, com plain a bou t two tem pora ry inj unct ion orders: one freez ing the ass ets of t hei r mother , Car men Del Fi er ro D e Garci a, that are hel d i n “ any

and all f ina nci al in sti tuti ons loc ated in the U nit ed St ates

. . . ” ; and the sec ond deny ing appel lan ts’ re q uest to enj oin appel lee from condu cti ng dis cov ery and sc hedul ing depos it ion s u nti l appel lan ts’ sp eci al appearance h a d been re sol v ed. TheT hese cases ger m i nat e f r om appel l ee’ s i ni t i al at t em pt t o becom e t he guar di an of C ar m en , w hi ch 1 t he t r i al cour t den i ed. Appel l ee a ppeal ed t he t r i al cour t ’ s den i al of hi s app l i cat i on forgua r di anshi p of C ar m en; howev er , dur i ng t he p enden cyoft he appeal , C ar m en passed away , and we di sm i ssed a ppel l ee’ s app eal as m o o t. S e e In re D e l F ie r ro D e G a rc ia , N o. 13- 09- 00559 - C V, 201 0 T ex. App. LEX I S 1612 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C h r is ti M a r . 4 , 2 0 1 0 , n o p e t

. ) ( m e m . o p .) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A fte rC a r m e n ’s d e a th a n d w h ile a p p e lle e ’s g u a rd i a n s h i p a p p e a l p e r ta in in g t o C a rm e n w a s p e n d i n g i n th i s C o u rt, a p p e l l e e fi l e d h i s p e ti ti o n to p ro b a te C a r m e n ’s w ill.

As not ed a bov e, t he t r i al cour t ’ s or derden y i ng a ppel l ant s’ pr ot ect i v e or derand t em por ar yi nj unct i on 2 i nv ol v es a r equestbyapp el l ant s t o en j oi n ap pel l ee f r om cond uct i ng d eposi t i ons a nd o t herdi scov er yunt i l t he t r i al cour t had r esol v ed a speci al app ear ance f i l ed b yapp el l ant s. Aft err ev i ewi ng t he co nt ent s of app el l ant s’ re q u e s t, w e c o n s tru e a p p e l l a n ts ’ m o ti o n a s a r e q u e s t f o r a te m p o ra ry i n ju n c ti o n . See Butnaru v. Ford Mot or C o. , 84 S. W

. 3d 1 98, 204 ( T ex. 200 2) ( st at i ng t hatt he p ur po s e of a t em po r ar yi nj unct i on i s t o pr eser v e t he s ta tu s q u o u n ti l a tri a l o n th e m e rit s ); W a llin g v . M e tc a lfe , 86 3 S

. W

. 2d 56 , 58 (T ex . 19 93 ) ( s am e); see also R a m ire zv . Q u in ta n illa , N o s . 1 3 -1 0 -0 0 4 4 9 -C V , 1 3 -1 0 -0 0 4 5 0 -C V , & 1 3 -1 0 -0 0 4 5 4 -C V , 2 0 1 0 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 6 8 6 1 , a t **2 7 -2 8 (T e x . A p p .– C o r p u s C h ris ti A u g . 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ) (“ T h e s ta tu s q u o i s th e ‘ l a s t, act ual , peacea bl e, noncon t est ed st at us whi ch pr eceded t he pendi ng cont r ov er sy . ’ ” ) ( quot i ng U n i v e rs a l H e a l th Ser vs. , I nc. v. Thom pson , 24 S

. W

. 3d 57 0, 57 7 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n 2 00 0, no pe t

. ))

. 2 und e rl yin g dispu tes pe rtain to a request to prob ate Carmen ’s w ill f iled by appellan ts’ brother , Ar mando Ga rc ia Jr ., appel lee , on Janua ry 26, 2010. 1 On May 27, 201 0, the trial court ent ered its: ( 1) order granting appe llee’s request for a temporar

y i nju nct ion in appel lat e caus e number 13- 10- 346- CV ; and ( 2) order deny ing a prote ctiv e orde r and te mp orary injunct ion requeste d by appella n t s i n app ellate cause number 13- 10- 347- CV

. On the same day , the tri al cour t als o granted a plea i n abat ement 2 filed by appel lee

. The pl ea i n abat ement ordered th at: the proba ting of

the La st W ill and Te stam entof CARMEN DEL FIERRO DE GARCIA in this cau se be aba ted until this [C]ou rt receives a translate d cou rt order or j udg ment from Me x ic o w hic h s tatesany of the fol low ing : a. T he su bject L ast W ill and Te stam entof CARMEN DEL FIERRO DE GAR CI A hasbeen acc epted to probate by a M ex ic an c our

t[; ] or b. T he su bject L ast W ill and Te stam entof CARMEN DEL F IERRO DE GAR CI A hasbeen re

jected for

probate. Subs eq uentl y , on June 23, 2 010, appel lan ts filed thei r noti ce of appeal i n appel lat e caus e number

13- 10- 346- CV

. In t hisnoti ce of appeal , app ell ants speci fical ly stated thatO n June 24, 2010, t hi s C our t aff i r m ed a t r i al cour t ’ s or der gr ant i ng a speci al appea r ance f i l ed by 3 A rm a n d o G a rc i a C a rd e n a s . See I n r e Cardenas , N o. 13- 09- 00560 - C V, 201 0 T ex . A pp . LEX I S 4793 ( T ex. A p p .– C o r p u s C h r is ti J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 , n o p e t. ) ( m e m . o p .) . In o u ro p in io n , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t C a r d e n a s ’s guar di anshi p sho ul d be han dl ed i n M exi co be cause: ( 1) hi s cont act s wi t h t he St at e of T exas wer e at t enuat ed; ( 2) t he e v i dence di d n ot i nd i c ate t hat he pur posef ul l yav ai l ed h i m sel fof t he j ur i sdi ct i on o fT exas; ( 3) t he m aj or i t yof

t he e st at e sou ghtt o be m anage d byapp el l ee was l ocat ed i n M ex i c o; a nd (4 ) C ar denas i s a M e x i c a n re s i d e n t. I d. a t **2 3 -2 4

. 3 they so ug ht t o c hal len g e the tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng of appel lee ’stemporar y i nju nct ion re q uest

. Lat e r, o n J uly 15, 2010, appel lan ts filed an a mended not ic e of acc ele ra ted app eal, not ing th at: (1) the y in ten ded t o app eal bot h the t rial cou rt’s granting of app ellee’s temporar

y i nju nct ion req uestand the o rd er deny ing appel lan ts’ protecti v e ord er and temporar

y i nju nct ion ; and ( 2) the appeal s i n bot h c aseswere ac cel erated pursuantto secti on 51. 014 of the Tex a s Civil Pr act ic e and Remedi es Cod e and Tex as Rul e of Ap pel lat e Procedu re 28.1 (a ). See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51. 014( a) (4 ) (V er non 200 8) ; see als o T EX . R. A PP . P. 28.1( a)

. Addi ti onal ly on J uly 15, 2010, appel lan ts re q uest ed th at the tr ial co urt ent er findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law i n bot h appel lat e caus e numbers. On Jul y 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , a p p e l l e e fi l e d i n t h i s C o u rta “ M o t i o n t o S t r i k e fo r C a u s e and Mo ti on to D is mis s for

W ant o f Jur is dicti on” both appel lan ts’ appeal s b ecaus e, among othe r things, ap pellan ts failed to time ly f ile the ir accelerate d ap pea ls. Upon receiving app ellee’s motio n , w e req uest ed a re spons e from ap pel lan ts, w hic h was filed on A ug ust16, 2010. In thei r re spons e, appel lan ts arg ue that the tr ial cour t did not hav e jur is dicti o n over Car men’ses tate becau se she w as a M ex ic an resi dent a n d , lik e her hus band, Ar mando Garci a C ardenas , s he did not hav e subst anti al cont act s w it h the Unit ed States

. Therefore, 3 app ellant s argue that the trial court lacke d jurisdiction to act in the case. App ellant s also admitthat“ [a]ny

l ate f iling [of thei r noti ce of appeal ] i s d ue to Appel lan ts’ att empt for theI n t hei rr esponse , app el l ant s do notdi r ect us t o an yev i dence ofan agr eem entm ade bet ween t he 4 par t i es i n t he t r i al j udge’ s cham ber s. T hus, we ar e un sur e ab outwhi ch ag r eem entapp el l ant s r ef er ence. 4 trial court to mo dif

y its r uling and execute orders tha t com ply w ith the agreeme nt m ade in the J udg e’sch amber

and in the i nterestof jus ti ce. ” 4 Sect ion 51.0 14( a) (4 ) of the c iv il pract ic e and re mediesco de prov ide s t hat a par ty mayappeal from an int er loc utor y order granti ng or refusing a t emporar y i nju nct ion

. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51.014( a) (4 ). Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 28.1 (a ) state s that“[a]pp eals f rom int erlocut oryo rders (w hen a llow ed as of right by statu te) . . . are accele rated app eals.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 28.1( a)

. In order to per fect an ac cel erated appeal of an i nter loc utor

y order , t he par

ty i s req uired to fil e a n oti ce of appeal “ w it hin 20 d ays a fter the judgmen t or order is sig ned .” Id. at R. 26.1 (b ). F urther more, the fili ng of a moti on for new tr ial , req uestfor fin din g s o f fa cta n d c oncl usi ons of law , or any othe r post -j udg ment moti on, e x ceptfor a moti o n fo r extens ion of ti me fil ed unde r Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Proced ure 26 .3, “w ill notexten d the time to perfect an accelerat ed a ppe al.” Id. at R. 26.3 , 28. 1(b). Here, t he tr ial courtentered the compl ain ed- of orders on May 27, 2010. Bot h of the tr ial co urt’ s o rd ers g ra nted temporar y i nju nct ion s i n fav or

of appellee. As noted abov e, secti on 51. 014( a) (4 ) of the c iv il pract ic e and re mediesco de and Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Proced ure 28.1(a) chara cteriz e an appe al f rom a trial court order grant ing a t e m p o ra ry inj unct ion as an a cc ele ra ted i nter loc utor y appeal

. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51. 014( a) (4 ); s e ea ls o T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 8.1( a)

. Beca use appel lan ts’ appeal s i n bot h ca s es are acce lerate d inte rlocuto ry app eals, a ppe llants w ere required to f ile their not ice of accelerat ed a ppe al w ithin twe nty days of the trial court’s May 27, 201 0 orde rs, or, in5

other words, by

Ju ne 16, 2010. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1( b)

. Ins tead, appel lan ts filed a noti ce o f a p p e a l in appel lat e c ause number 13- 10- 346- CVon J une 25, 2010, and an am end ed not ice of

a ccelerat ed app eal in bot h case s on July 15, 201 0. Clearly , app ellant s’ n o t ic e s o f a p p e a l were f il e d a f t e r th e J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 d e a d li n e a n d we re , t h u s , u n t i m e ly. See i d. F urther more, the re cord d o e s not reflectthatappel lan ts filed a mot ion for extens ion of t ime under Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re 26.3

. See i d. at R . 26. 3; see als o Houser

v. McElveen , 243 S.W .3d 6 46, 6 46-4 7 ( T e x. 2 0 08)( sta ti ng thata no ti ce of appeal sh oul d be cons ide re d ti mely i f f il ed w it hin fifteen days a fter t he fil ing deadl ine and acc ompani ed by

a mot ion for e xtens ion of ti me w it h a reason abl e ex pla nat io n fo r the del ay ). I n addi ti on, a ppel lan ts’ req uest s for f ind ing s of fact and conc lus ion s o f law do n ot extend the a ppel lat e deadl ine fo r th e se acc ele ra ted i nter loc utor y appeal s. See In re K.A. F. , 160 S.W .3d 9 23, 9 27- 28 ( Tex . 200 5) ( sta ti ng that : (1 ) “a co urt of appeal s h as jur is dicti on ov er an appeal i f the appel lan t t imel y fil es an i nst ru ment i n a b ona fide attempt to i nv oke the a ppella te cour t’ s j ur is dicti on” ; ( 2) the fili ng of “t he pos t- jud g ment moti ons li ste d i n Tex as Rul e of A ppel lat e Procedu re 26.1( a) w il l not operate t o extend the a ppel lat e deadl ine ”; and (3 ) “ [a]l low ing su ch post -o rd er moti ons to au tomati cal ly del ay the appel lat e dea dline is simp ly incon sistent w ith the idea of accelerat ing the app eal in the f irst place.”). Beca use appel lan ts’ noti ces of appeal were unt imel y , app ell ants hav e fa ile d to per fect thei r appeal s in both cas es; w e therefore lac k jur is dicti on ov er both appeal s. See In r e K.A .F. , 160 S.W .3d at 928 (d is mis si ng for want o f jur is dicti on an appeal i nv olv ing an order ter minat ing a pa re nt’ s p arental r ig hts w hen t he parent filed her noti ce of acce lerated appeal se v enty-four

days a fter t he tr ial co urt s ig ned it s final order , ev en th oug h the parent6

ti mely fil ed a moti on for new

tr ial and a moti on to modi fy the j udg ment) ; Fed. Mut. Ins . C o., Inc. v. Dave npo rt , 85 S.W .3d 8 37, 839 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2002, no pet .)( dis mis si ng an appeal of an i nter loc utor y order g ra nti ng a t emporar

y i nju nct ion fo r la ckof

j ur is dicti on becau se appel lan ts fa ile d t o f ile t hei r noti ce of appeal w it hin twenty days o f the int er loc utor

y order ); see als o Vaughn v . Sa wyer , N o. 04 -0 3- 00297- CV , 200 3 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 4 851, at * *3- 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o J u n e 1 1 , 2003, no pet .)( mem. op.)( per curiam ) ( dism issing app ellant ’s appe al for lack of jurisdiction be cause app ellantdid notf ile his not ice of

app eal w ithin twenty days af ter the trial court’s int erlocut oryorder w as signed). Accordin gly , w e GRANTapp ellee’s m otion to dism iss appe llants’ ap pea ls in both ca use numbers for

want o f jur is dicti on. Al l other pendi ng moti ons are di smi ss ed as moot.

P E RC U R I A M Del iv ered and filed the 27th day of Aug ust , 201 0.