NUMBER 13-15-00531-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
JUAN DAVID ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND MARIA ACIANA SAENZ,
INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants,
v.
RICARDO ORTIZ AND
YOLANDA ORTIZ ALANIZ, Appellees.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 93rd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Juan David Ortiz, Individually, and Maria Aciana Saenz, Individually,
attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of
Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-6421-13-B. We dismiss for want of
jurisdiction.
Judgment in this cause was signed on August 3, 2015. A motion for new trial was
filed on September 3, 2015, and notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2015. On
November 10, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it appeared that the
notice of appeal was not timely perfected. Appellants were 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 have not filed a response to the Court’s notice. On
November 19, 2015, appellees filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when
notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for
new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial
has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is
signed. Id. Appellants’ deadline for filing the motion for new trial was September 2,
2015. The motion for new trial was untimely because it was filed on September 3, 2015.
Accordingly, appellants’ notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before
September 2, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this
Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of
2
jurisdiction. Appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
10th day of December, 2015.
3