Lidia Martinez v. Navy Army Community Credit Union Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-19-00645-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ LIDIA MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. NAVY ARMY COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras Appellant, Lidia Martinez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 2019DCV-3270G. Judgment in this cause was signed on August 28, 2019. A motion for new trial was filed on September 30, 2019. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on November 26, 2019, but was not filed until December 10, 2019. 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.Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.Waco 2002, no pet.). On December 10, 2019, 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. Appellant was 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 appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to correct the defect of which she was notified, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 16th day of January, 2020. 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.
