                            NUMBER 13-16-00272-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

O. E. INVESTMENTS, LTD., ET AL.,                                            Appellants,

                                           v.

MARJORIE LYNN BRAND FERRELL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
OF THE KATHRYN L. BRAND
REVOCABLE MANAGEMENT TRUST,                         Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 275th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellants, “O. E. Investments, Ltd. and Othal E. Brand Jr., (‘Plaintiffs’) and O. E.

Investments, Ltd., converted and reorganized from O.E. Investments, Inc., Trophy

International, Inc., General Partner of O. E. Investments, Inc. and Othal E. Brand Jr.
(‘Counter-Defendants’)” attemped to perfect an appeal from an “Order on Pending

Summary Judgment Motions” signed on April 14, 2016, in cause no. C-0367-13-E in the

275th District Court of Hidalgo County. Upon review of the documents before the Court,

it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment or order. On May 20, 2016,

2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants 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.      Appellants

were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt

of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. More than ten days

have passed and appellants have not responded to the Court’s notice or otherwise

corrected the defect.

       The Hidalgo County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment

has been rendered in this cause. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only

have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by

statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to

correct the defect in this matter, 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),(c).

                                                                       PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
14th day of July, 2016.




                                             2
