Court Opinion

ID: 3086561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 02:50:53.209352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:37.901077
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00703-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

SHELLY SALAZAR,                                                         APPELLANT,

                                           v.

BENEFICIAL FINANCIAL 1 INC., SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO BENEFICIAL TEXAS INC, ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,                           APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 94th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Shelly Salazar, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order granting

expedited foreclosure under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. Upon review of the

documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken

was not an appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so
that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days

from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. In response, appellant states that the trial court did not conduct a hearing

as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant requests a thorough review

of her file and that the appeal proceed.

       The order on appeal granted the home equity foreclosure application filed by

appellees pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. Rule 736.8(c) states that an

order granting or denying an application under Rule 736 “is not subject to a motion for

rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c). Consequently,

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. In re Casterline, No. 13-13-00708-CV, 2014 WL
217285, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding); In re

Dominguez, 416 S.W.3d 700, 708 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, orig. proceeding); see

Grant–Brooks v. FV–1, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 933, 933 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)

(interpreting predecessor rule).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's response, is

of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                              PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
6th day of March, 2014.

                                            2