Court Opinion

ID: 2922785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:01:01.505501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:32.897213
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-665-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________

ELMAN ALEXIS PALMA, ET AL.,                                       Appellants,

v.

ELEAZAR P. ZAVALA,                                                        Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Hidalgo County, Texas
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Hinojosa and Rodriguez
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellants, ELMAN ALEXIS PALMA, ET AL., attempted to perfect an appeal
from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas,
in cause number CL-04-335-B.  Judgment in this cause was signed on August 31,
2004.  No timely motion for new trial was filed.  Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1,
appellant’s notice of appeal was due on September 30, 2004, but was not filed until
December 14, 2004.  
         Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the
defect, if it could be done.  Appellant was 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’ response was received on January 4, 2005.  In said response,
appellants state that they did not have actual notice of the judgment until December
13, 2004, and that a motion for additional time to file documents had been filed in
accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(5).  On January 10, 2005, this Court received
appellee’s response and a copy of the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion for
additional time to file documents.
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, appellants’ and appellee’s responses,
and the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion, is of the opinion that the appeal
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.
                                                               PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this
the 3rd day of February, 2005.