In the Matter of the Marriage of Erica Edith Alonzo and Jose Manuel Figueroa and in the Interest of J.J.F., a Child Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-24-00011-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF ERICA EDITH ALONZO AND JOSE MANUEL FIGUEROA AND IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.F., A CHILD On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña This matter is before the Court on appellants’ first and second motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal. We now deny the motions and the appeal for want of jurisdiction. On September 14, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and corrected judgment. On October 13, 2023, appellants filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s judgment. On January 4, 2024, appellants filed a notice of appeal. On January 5, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellants were advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s directive. On January 11, 2024, appellants filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed more than fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and was untimely. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.– Amarillo 2002, no pet.). Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely, and appellants first and second motions for extension of time to file the notice of appeal were also untimely; therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we deny both motions and dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. 2 L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Delivered and filed on the 1st day of February, 2024. 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.
