Kathy Elizabeth Laymon v. Volksbank Glan-Munchweiler--Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County

State: Texas

Docket No: 04-07-00556-CV

Case Date: 11/21/2007

Plaintiff: CARLOS OMAR NIETO

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS (Other)

Preview:Kathy Elizabeth Laymon v. Volksbank GlanMunchweiler--Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-07-00556-CV Kathy Elizabeth LAYMON, Appellant v. VOLKSBANK GLAN-MUNCHWEILER, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 05-1572-CV Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2007

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed the final judgment on May 14, 2007. Appellant filed a timely Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on June 1, 2007. Because Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and 297 do not apply to summary judgments, the requested findings of fact did not extend the appellate deadlines. See IKB Industries (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997) ("A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend the time for perfecting appeal of a judgment rendered as a matter of law, where findings and conclusions can have no purpose and should not be requested, made, or considered on appeal. Examples are summary judgment, . . ."). Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 13, 2007. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 28, 2007. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. To motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on July 5, 2007. On September 27, 2007, we issued an order that appellant show cause, in writing, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No response has been filed by the appellant. Accordingly, appellant's notice of appeal is untimely. "Because this court is without jurisdiction to consider an appeal that is not timely perfected, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction." Grondoma v. Sutton, 991 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. denied). The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/20685.html[8/20/2013 8:03:33 PM]

PER CURIAM

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/20685.html[8/20/2013 8:03:33 PM]

Download 20685.pdf