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.

Reyes Urbina v. Designer Homes Co., Inc., Onesimo Martinez, Javier Villescas [Erroneously Sued as Javier Bilolescas or Billescas], Compass Bank and Gregory S. Kazen, in His Capacity Only as Substitute Trustee

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-11-00325-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 25, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellant, Reyes Urbina, filed an appeal against Designer Homes Co. Inc. and other associated parties, including a trustee. The appeal was reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas. Urbina's notice of appeal was deemed defective as it failed to adhere to the requirements outlined in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2) and 9.5(e)(3). Urbina was notified on June 2, 2011, to amend the notice within 30 days. Despite a subsequent reminder on July 19, 2011, Urbina did not rectify the defects within the specified timeframe. As a result of his inaction and failure to address the procedural issues, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution after providing ten days' notice to all parties involved. The dismissal was formalized in a memorandum opinion delivered and filed on August 25, 2011.

Legal Issues Addressed

Defective Notice of Appeal

Application: The appellant's notice of appeal was found to be defective as it did not comply with specific Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Reasoning: The Court informed Urbina that the notice did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2) and 9.5(e)(3).

Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to amend the defective notice of appeal despite multiple notifications and deadlines.

Reasoning: The Court, with ten days' notice to the parties, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the Court's notice.