Shelly Salazar v. Beneficial Financial 1 Inc., Successor by Merger to Beneficial Texas Inc, Its Successors and Assigns ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-13-00703-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
SHELLY SALAZAR, APPELLANT,
v.
BENEFICIAL FINANCIAL 1 INC., SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO BENEFICIAL TEXAS INC, ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 94th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Shelly Salazar, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order granting
expedited foreclosure under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. Upon review of the
documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken
was not an appealable order. 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. See TEX. R. APP. P.
37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days
from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. In response, appellant states that the trial court did not conduct a hearing
as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant requests a thorough review
of her file and that the appeal proceed.
The order on appeal granted the home equity foreclosure application filed by
appellees pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 736. Rule 736.8(c) states that an
order granting or denying an application under Rule 736 “is not subject to a motion for
rehearing, new trial, bill of review, or appeal.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.8(c). Consequently,
we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. In re Casterline, No. 13-13-00708-CV, 2014 WL
217285, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding); In re
Dominguez, 416 S.W.3d 700, 708 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, orig. proceeding); see
Grant–Brooks v. FV–1, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 933, 933 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)
(interpreting predecessor rule).
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's response, is
of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,
the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
6th day of March, 2014.
2