In the Interest of A.L.P. and V.P. Appeal from 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00342-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.P. AND V.P. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Maria M. Chavez, appearing pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal pursuant to §201.015 of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 201.015 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.)(addressing de novo hearing of an associate judge’s ruling before the referring court). Appellant’s notice of appeal states she is appealing findings, conclusions, or recommendations made by the master at a hearing on June 26, 2016. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment. On August 4, 2016, 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. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Because the report of an associate judge is not a final, appealable order or judgment, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 8th day of September, 2016. 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.