Case Information

*1 NUMBER 13-15-00531-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JUAN DAVID ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND MARIA ACIANA SAENZ,

INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants,

v.

RICARDO ORTIZ AND

YOLANDA ORTIZ ALANIZ, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants, Juan David Ortiz, Individually, and Maria Aciana Saenz, Individually, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of *2 Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-6421-13-B. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment in this cause was signed on August 3, 2015. A motion for new trial was filed on September 3, 2015, and notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it appeared that the notice of appeal was not timely perfected. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court ’ s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellants have not filed a response to the Court’s notice. O n November 19, 2015, appellees filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is signed. Id. Appellants’ deadline for filing the motion for new trial was September 2, 2015. The motion for new trial was untimely because it was filed on September 3, 2015. Accordingly, appellants’ notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before September 2, 2015. T P. 26.1(a).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants ’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court ’ s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of *3 jurisdiction. Appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the

10th day of December, 2015.