Marian Wallis Spigener v. Danny Ray Lee, Et Ux, Polly Miller Lee

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-08-00280-CV

 

Marian Wallis Spigener,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

 

Danny Ray AND Polly Miller Lee,

                                                                                    Appellees

 

 

 


From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. C200700216

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 


            Appellant Marian Wallis Spigener passed away during the pendency of her appeal.  Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.1(a)(1) provides that a civil appeal may proceed upon the death of the appellant.  See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(1).  However, for the appeal to continue, someone must appear on behalf of Spigener.  An heir may represent Spigener if he or she confirms: (1) he or she is Spigener’s heir; (2) no administration of Spigener’s estate is planned or pending; (3) no personal representative has been appointed for the estate; and (4) no administration of the estate in probate court is necessary or desired by those interested in the estate.  See Casillas v. Cano, 79 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, order, no pet.).

            Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified Spigener’s daughter Rose McCullough by letter dated June 16, 2009 that the appeal would be dismissed unless an attorney or heir appeared on behalf of Spigener and showed his or her authority to proceed.  Id. at 589.  McCullough later requested additional time to comply, which the Court granted.  The Clerk notified McCullough by letter dated September 22, 2009 that she had twenty-one additional days to comply or the appeal would be presented to the Court for dismissal for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).  The Court has received no further response.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

 

FELIPE REYNA

                                                                                                Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment to the extent it is based on dismissal for want of prosecution because that is the only ground on which anyone was notified that a dismissal may occur.  A separate opinion will not issue.)

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 25, 2009

[CV06]