Court Opinion

ID: 9407743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-08 19:10:00.633024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.891599
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00174-CV

                     COURT OF APPEALS

              THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

               CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GLENN STEED, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS HEIR OF JANET K. STEED,                              Appellant,

                                   v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, NOT INDIVIDUALLY,
BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR
NATIONSTAR HE ACQUISITION TRUST
2020-1 AND CHAMPION MORTGAGE
COMPANY,                                                 Appellee.

              On appeal from the 148th District Court
                    of Nueces County, Texas.

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
       This matter is before the Court on appellant’s motion to allow appeal of a wrongful

foreclosure past the deadline to appeal, which the Court construes as a motion for

extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The matter is also before the Court on

appellee’s motion to dismiss.

       We now dismiss the matter for want of jurisdiction. On April 11, 2022, the trial court

entered an agreed judgment in this matter. Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the trial

court on May 8, 2023. On May 9, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it

appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal

would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt

of the Court’s directive.

       Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed more

than fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and was untimely. TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.3. We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and

liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely

necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615,

616-17 (Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our

jurisdiction by enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not

provided for by rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–

Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

       Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, by nearly a year, and appellant’s motion

for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was also untimely; therefore, we lack

                                             2
jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss both motions and the entire cause

for want of jurisdiction.

                                                            NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                            Justice

Delivered and filed on the
6th day of July, 2023.

                                          3