International BC Group LLC, Minerva Carrizales Hernandez, and Jorge Alberto Briones Rodriguez v. Lone Star National Bank Appeal from 206th District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-17-00466-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ___________________________________________________________ INTERNATIONAL BC GROUP LLC, MINERVA CARRIZALES HERNANDEZ, AND JORGE ALBERTO BRIONES RODRIGUEZ, Appellants, v. LONE STAR NATIONAL BANK, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellants, International BC Group LLC, Minerva Carrizales Hernandez, and Jorge Alberto Briones Rodriguez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-3623-16-D. Judgment in this cause was signed on July 18, 2017. No motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants’ notice of appeal was due on August 17, 2017, but was not filed until August 18, 2017. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.). On August 21, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’ failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 2 jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed the 26th day of October, 2017. 3
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.
