CORNELIUS HOWARD, Appellant v. PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, Appellee

Annotate this Case

DISMISS; Opinion Filed February 1, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-01325-CV
............................
CORNELIUS HOWARD, Appellant
V.
PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-06-12991-B
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Lang-Miers
        Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 12, 2009. Because the notice of appeal did not reference a judgment date, on December 23, 2009, the Court sent the parties a letter questioning whether there was a final judgement in the case. Appellant did not respond with a jurisdictional brief. Counsel for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company (collectively, MetLife), which were parties below, filed a response stating that a final judgment was dated June 4, 2009, and that appellee Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC filed a motion to modify the final order on July 6, 2009. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 4, 329b(a). Counsel for MetLife attached a certified copy of the trial court's docket sheet to the response.
        Based on the documents before us, we conclude appellant's notice of appeal was due by September 2, 2009. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(2). Appellant's October 12, 2009 notice of appeal is untimely, leaving us without jurisdiction over the appeal. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).
        We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
 
091325F.P05
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.