Eric Van Zandt v. Prescott Legal Search, Inc. and Larry Prescott--Appeal from 201st District Court of Travis County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00196-CV Eric Van Zandt, Appellant v. Prescott Legal Search, Inc. and Larry Prescott, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN501708, HONORABLE WILLIAM E. BENDER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Eric Van Zandt seeks to appeal from a district court judgment rendered October 10, 2005, dismissing his petition for bill of review as untimely and without merit. Van Zandt filed a motion for new trial and a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 19, 2005. The district court denied the motion for new trial on January 3, 2006.1 Van Zandt filed an untimely notice of appeal with the district court clerk on March 22, 2006, 163 days after the judgment dismissing his petition for bill of review was signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after judgment is signed). Even if the time for filing the notice of appeal could have been extended by fifteen days under rule 26.3, Van Zandt’s 1 It is unclear whether the district court had plenary power to render its order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b. March 22, 2006 notice of appeal from an October 10, 2005 judgment was untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; cf. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). All parties were provided notice of this Court’s intent to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on July 7, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. Id.; Grondona v. Sutton, 991 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied). Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: August 9, 2006 2

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.