Carolyn R. Carman v. Mark Hayes and Shiela Hayes and All Other Occupants of 1021 Pebble Beach Dr., Mansfield, TX 76063
Summary of the case Carolyn R. Carman v. Mark Hayes and Shiela Hayes and All Other Occupants of 1021 Pebble Beach Dr., Mansfield, TX 76063
The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas dismissed Carolyn R. Carman's appeal for want of prosecution after she failed to file her brief by the extended deadline. Despite being notified and given an opportunity to explain the delay, no response was received from the appellant.
Key Issues of the case Carolyn R. Carman v. Mark Hayes and Shiela Hayes and All Other Occupants of 1021 Pebble Beach Dr., Mansfield, TX 76063
- Failure to file a brief
- Dismissal for want of prosecution
Key Facts of the case Carolyn R. Carman v. Mark Hayes and Shiela Hayes and All Other Occupants of 1021 Pebble Beach Dr., Mansfield, TX 76063
- Appellant's brief was due on November 2, 2015, and extended to November 30, 2015.
- No brief was filed by the appellant, and no explanation was provided.
Decision of the case Carolyn R. Carman v. Mark Hayes and Shiela Hayes and All Other Occupants of 1021 Pebble Beach Dr., Mansfield, TX 76063
Dismissed for want of prosecution
Opinions
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00184-CV
CAROLYN R. CARMAN APPELLANT
V.
MARK HAYES AND SHIELA HAYES APPELLEES AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1021 PEBBLE BEACH DR., MANSFIELD, TX 76063
------------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2015-001845-1
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT ------------
On October 5, 2015, we notified appellant that her brief was due on
November 2, 2015. Appellant filed a “Motion to Substitute and for Extension of
Time” on November 19, 2015, asking to substitute counsel and to extend her
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. briefing deadline to November 30, 2015. We granted the motion and ordered her
brief due on November 30, 2015.
On December 8, 2015, we notified appellant that her brief had not been
filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R.
App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution
unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court
within ten days a motion reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief and the
need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We
have not received any response.
Because appellant's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth BONNIE SUDDERTH JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DELIVERED: January 14, 2016
2