Teresa A. Johnson v. Suntrust Bank d/b/a Lightstream Appeal from 370th District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-19-00370-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ TERESA A. JOHNSON, Appellant, V. SUNTRUST BANK D/B/A LIGHTSTREAM, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant Teresa A. Johnson, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from trial court cause number C-2122-19-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Further, appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588. Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she wishes to appeal “the Citation served on July 13, 2019.” On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that there was no final, appealable order so that steps could be taken to correct this defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice. Appellant did not correct the defect or otherwise respond to this Court’s notice. 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, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 37.1, 42.3(a),(c). GINA M. BENAVIDES, Justice Delivered and filed the 12th day of September, 2019. 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.
