Court Opinion

ID: 9682135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:05:50.568938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.600142
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee reurges its motion to dismiss. The portion of the notice of appeal in question is given as follows:
The Chief Appraiser of the El Paso Central Appraisal District gives notice that she desires to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of the Court.
An appeal bond is not required of the said Chief Appraiser (Section 42.28, Property Tax Code).
Tex.R.App.P. 40(a)(2), provides that in cases that do not require security for costs on appeal, a written notice of appeal must be filed. To be sufficient, it must state the number and style of case, the court in which pending, and that the appellant desires to appeal from the judgment. Appel-lee contends the chief appraiser was not a party to the suit, and therefore cannot give effective notice of appeal.
Rules of Civil Procedure are to be given liberal construction, particularly as they relate to filing notice of appeal. State Department Of Highways And Public Transportation v. Douglas, 577 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The right to appeal is constitutional and should not be defeated on a technical construction of the rules. Sanders v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 201 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston), rev’d on other grounds, 205 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1947). In this case, all requirements of notice were met except the misnomer of the Appellants. The chief appraiser and the Appellants’ interests and entities are so intertwined, they essentially produce an alter ego relationship in this case. The Appellee was not disadvantaged or misled in any manner, as its brief and motion to dismiss were filed on the same day. The brief properly addressed Appellants’ points of error.
Under the facts of this case, we find substantial compliance with Rule 40(a)(2). Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.