Teresa A. Johnson v. Suntrust Bank D/B/A Lightstream ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                             NUMBER 13-19-00370-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    ____________________________________________________________
    TERESA A. JOHNSON,                                                         Appellant,
    V.
    SUNTRUST BANK D/B/A LIGHTSTREAM,                    Appellee.
    ____________________________________________________________
    On appeal from the 370th District Court
    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
    ____________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
    Appellant Teresa A. Johnson, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal
    from trial court cause number C-2122-19-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County,
    Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final
    judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 
    434 S.W.3d 586
    , 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann
    v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001).           Further, appellate courts have
    jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides
    for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 
    233 S.W.3d 835
    , 840 (Tex.
    2007); see City of 
    Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588
    .
    Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she wishes to appeal “the Citation served
    on July 13, 2019.” On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it
    appeared that there was no final, appealable order so that steps could be taken to correct
    this defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was advised
    that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from
    the date of receipt of this notice.    Appellant did not correct the defect or otherwise
    respond to this Court’s notice.
    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, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
    
    id. R. 37.1,
    42.3(a),(c).
    GINA M. BENAVIDES,
    Justice
    Delivered and filed the
    12th day of September, 2019.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-19-00370-CV

Filed Date: 9/12/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/14/2019