O.E. Investments, Ltd. v. Marjorie Lynn Brand Ferrell, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Kathryn L. Brand Revocable Management Trust ( 2016 )

NUMBER 13-16-00272-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
O. E. INVESTMENTS, LTD., ET AL., Appellants,
v.
MARJORIE LYNN BRAND FERRELL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
OF THE KATHRYN L. BRAND
REVOCABLE MANAGEMENT TRUST, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 275th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, “O. E. Investments, Ltd. and Othal E. Brand Jr., (‘Plaintiffs’) and O. E.
Investments, Ltd., converted and reorganized from O.E. Investments, Inc., Trophy
International, Inc., General Partner of O. E. Investments, Inc. and Othal E. Brand Jr.
(‘Counter-Defendants’)” attemped to perfect an appeal from an “Order on Pending
Summary Judgment Motions” signed on April 14, 2016, in cause no. C-0367-13-E in the
275th District Court of Hidalgo County. Upon review of the documents before the Court,
it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment or order. On May 20, 2016,
2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants 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. Appellants
were 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. More than ten days
have passed and appellants have not responded to the Court’s notice or otherwise
corrected the defect.
The Hidalgo County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment
has been rendered in this cause. 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 appellants’ 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
JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
14th day of July, 2016.
2