From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Serrano v. City Bank

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Aug 5, 2016
No. 08-15-00044-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2016)

Opinion

No. 08-15-00044-CV

08-05-2016

Rosa Serrano d/b/a The Lens Factory, Appellant, v. City Bank and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Appellees.


Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2015-DCV-1079/2013-DCV-3139) ORDER

The Court suspended the appellate deadlines on May 17, 2016. Those deadlines will remain suspended while the Court resolves issues related to the reporter's record. In an order entered on May 3, 2016, the Court erroneously changed the cause number of this appeal to indicate that the appeal is only from cause number 2015-DCV-1079, but the appeal is effectively from cause numbers 2015-DCV-1079 and 2013-DCV-3139 as indicated in our order dated April 14, 2015. The Clerk of the Court has corrected our case management system to reflect both trial court cause numbers.

Pending before the Court is Appellant's motion contesting the trial court's order sustaining the contests to Appellant's affidavit of indigence. See TEX.R.APP.P. 20.1(j). In their responses, Appellees assert that Appellant's motion should be denied because it was not timely filed. On June 16, 2016, the Court granted Appellant's request for an extension of time in which to file her motion and ordered that the motion was due to be filed no later than July 13, 2016. The Court received Appellant's motion via the U.S. Mail on July 15, 2016, two days after the deadline. In order for a motion to be timely filed under the "mail box rule", it must be deposited in the mail on or before the last day for filing. See TEX.R.APP.P. 9.2(b)(1)(c). The postmark on the envelope is not entirely legible. It appears the envelope was mailed on the 14th, but the month is not legible. Consequently, the postmark is not conclusive evidence of the date of mailing. Appellant has not provided the Court with any proof establishing that she mailed the motion on or before July 13, 2016. Consequently, we conclude that her motion is untimely and presents nothing for our review. Appellant's motion is denied as untimely filed. See Campbell v. Carriage Place Apartments, 14-12-001096-CV, 2013 WL 1279427 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.], March 28, 2013, no pet.) Mata v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 14-12-00517-CV, 2012 WL 3686220 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.], August 28, 2012, no pet.).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2016.

PER CURIAM Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Hughes, J., not participating)


Summaries of

Serrano v. City Bank

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Aug 5, 2016
No. 08-15-00044-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2016)
Case details for

Serrano v. City Bank

Case Details

Full title:Rosa Serrano d/b/a The Lens Factory, Appellant, v. City Bank and Old…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Date published: Aug 5, 2016

Citations

No. 08-15-00044-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2016)