Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5 v. Robert M. Markham and All Other Occupants

NUMBER 13-12-00348-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ARGENT SECURITIES INC.
ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2006-W5, Appellant,

v.

ROBERT MARKHAM
AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in trust for the

Registered Holders of Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2006-W5, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on April 20, 2012,

in trial court cause number CL-11-3510-E. Upon review of the documents before the

Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment or other order subject to

appeal. On May 25, 2012, 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 the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice requesting correction of the defect.

In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review

final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURIDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
4th day of October, 2012.

2