DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ARGENT SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-W5 v. ROBERT M. MARKHAM AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-12-00348-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, IN TRUST FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ARGENT SECURITIES INC. ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-W5, Appellant, v. ROBERT MARKHAM AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in trust for the Registered Holders of Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on April 20, 2012, in trial court cause number CL-11-3510-E. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment or other order subject to appeal. On May 25, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant 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. Appellant was 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. Appellant failed to respond to the Court s notice requesting correction of the defect. 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 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, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURIDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 4th day of October, 2012. 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.
