Beverly Kelly v. Elon Musk

NUMBER 13-26-00357-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

BEVERLY KELLY, Appellant,

v.

ELON MUSK, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 107TH DISTRICT COURT
OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On May 1, 2026, appellant

Beverly Kelly filed a pro se notice of appeal attempting to appeal “findings, conclusions,

or recommendations which were made by the Judge Robert Garza at a hearing on

February 12, 2026” in trial court cause number 2025-DCL-02677-A. We construe the

notice as attempting to appeal the trial court’s order denying default judgment entered on

March 4, 2026.
On May 5, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal

was not timely filed. The Clerk further notified appellant that if the defect is not cured

within ten days from the date of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). The Clerk of the Court further notified appellant that her notice of

appeal failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d) and

requested correction of these defects within thirty days. See id. R. 9.5(e), 25.1(d).

Appellant has neither cured the late defect nor filed a corrected notice of appeal.

We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so that the

right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to

effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex.

1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by

enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by

rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no

pet.). It is this Court’s opinion that the notice of appeal was untimely filed in this cause.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c). We also dismiss appellant’s motion to appear remotely for want of jurisdiction.

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of June, 2026.

2