You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ronald L. & Wendy S. Savage v. Cendant Mobility Financial Corporation D/B/A Cartus Financial Corporation

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-09-00128-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 2, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a case before the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, the appeals involving Ronald and Wendy Savage as well as Cendant Mobility Financial Corporation were reviewed. The Savages' appeal was dismissed due to their non-compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, which mandates either the payment of the clerk’s fee or the establishment of indigence. Their failure to respond to a notice of potential dismissal culminated in the court dismissing their appeal under Rule 42.3(c). Similarly, Cendant's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as its notice of appeal was not filed within the timeframe required by Rule 26.1(d), which stipulates a filing deadline within 30 days from the trial court's judgment or within 14 days after the first filed notice of appeal. Cendant's notice was filed well beyond these limits, and their failure to address the court’s inquiry reaffirmed the dismissal. Consequently, the court consolidated and dismissed both appeals, with all pending motions deemed moot. The decision was rendered by Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal for Failure to Pay Clerk’s Fee

Application: The court dismissed the Savages' appeal due to their failure to establish indigence or pay the required clerk’s fee, as mandated by the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.

Reasoning: The court had previously dismissed the Savages' appeal on September 18, 2009, due to their failure to establish indigence or pay the necessary clerk’s fee, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.

Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

Application: Cendant's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it failed to file a timely notice of appeal under Rule 26.1(d).

Reasoning: Cendant was notified that its appeal lacked jurisdiction as it was not timely perfected. According to Rule 26.1(d), Cendant was required to file its notice of appeal within 30 days from the trial court's judgment date (March 20, 2009) or within 14 days after the first filed notice of appeal (March 6, 2009).

Effect of Dismissal on Pending Motions

Application: The dismissal of both appeals rendered all pending motions moot.

Reasoning: The court merged the dismissal of the Savages' appeal with that of Cendant’s and officially dismissed the entire appeal, rendering any pending motions moot.