Kathy Elizabeth Laymon v. Volksbank Glan-Munchweiler--Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County
Annotate this CaseNo. 04-07-00556-CV
Kathy Elizabeth LAYMON,
Appellant
v.
VOLKSBANK GLAN-MUNCHWEILER,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05-1572-CV
Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2007
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
The trial court signed the final judgment on May 14, 2007. Appellant filed a timely Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on June 1, 2007. Because Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and 297 do not apply to summary judgments, the requested findings of fact did not extend the appellate deadlines. See IKB Industries (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997) ("A request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend the time for perfecting appeal of a judgment rendered as a matter of law, where findings and conclusions can have no purpose and should not be requested, made, or considered on appeal. Examples are summary judgment, . . ."). Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 13, 2007. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 28, 2007. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. To motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on July 5, 2007. On September 27, 2007, we issued an order that appellant show cause, in writing, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
No response has been filed by the appellant. Accordingly, appellant's notice of appeal is untimely. "Because this court is without jurisdiction to consider an appeal that is not timely perfected, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction." Grondoma v. Sutton, 991 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. denied). The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
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.