Summary
dismissing an attempted appeal from a Rule 736 order for lack of jurisdiction
Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. U.S. Home Ownership LLCOpinion
NO. 01-14-00478-CV
11-25-2014
MADHURI BONDYOPADHYAY AND PROBIR K. BONDYOPADHYAY, Appellant v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWABS, INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-SEA2, Appellee
On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2013-17412
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants, Madhuri Bondyopadhyay and Probir K. Bondyopadhyay, have appealed from a "Home Equity Foreclosure Order," signed by the trial court on June 12, 2014. By its order, the trial court granted the application for a home equity foreclosure order of appellee, Bank of New York Mellon fka Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc. Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-SEA2. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 735, 736.1.
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736.8, an order granting an application for a home equity foreclosure order "is not subject to a motion for rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal." TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c). "Any challenge to a Rule 736 order must be made in a suit filed in a separate, independent, original proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. Accordingly, we notified appellants that the Court might dismiss the appeal unless, within fourteen days of the notice, they provided a detailed explanation showing that we have jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellants responded, indicating that they have filed a new case in the trial court.
The June 12, 2014 order from which appellants have appealed to this Court grants appellee's home equity foreclosure application under Rule 736. Because a Rule 736 order is not appealable, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8; Johnson v. Residential Funding Real Estate Holdings, Inc., No. 01-10-00287-CV, 2011 WL 2418516, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Grant-Brooks v. FV-1, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 933, 933 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied); Kelso v. CIT Group/Consumer Fin. Inc., No. 01-05-00671-CV, 2005 WL 3118182, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem.op.); Barriere v. Am. Serv. Mortg. Co., No. 14-10-00617-Cv, 2010 WL 3504755, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. 42.3. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Massengale.