Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00707-CV
Melissa BROQUET and John Broquet,
Appellants
v.
Walter
WALTER MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Appellee
From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-12-60-A
Honorable Robert Blackmon, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2015
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
Appellants’ initial brief was due to be filed December 8, 2014. After two 30-day
extensions, Appellants filed their initial brief on February 6, 2015. Appellants were cautioned that
no further extension of time would be granted; however, because the initial brief violated Rule 38
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this court ordered that the brief be stricken and ordered
appellants to file an amended brief on or before March 2, 2015. Appellants filed a first amended
brief. The first amended brief still violated Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
because the Statement of Facts and Argument Sections did not contain appropriate citations to the
04-14-00707-CV
record and the brief referenced and attached evidence not presented to the trial court and not part
of the appellate record. This court, again, struck the first amended brief and ordered appellants to
file a second amended brief on or before March 17, 2015. Appellants were cautioned that if the
brief failed to satisfy Rule 38, it would be stricken, and the appeal dismissed. Appellants, now, file
another motion for extension of time to allow a newly-hired attorney time to review the record and
file a brief. Appellee filed an objection and opposition to any more extensions.
Because appellants’ brief is already over 100 days past due, appellants were cautioned that
no further extensions of time will be granted and the brief must conform to the appellate rules by
March 17, 2015, and because appellants have been given numerous opportunities to file a
conforming brief, this court must deny this third motion for extension of time. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.8(a)(1), 42.3.
It is ORDERED that appellants’ motion for extension of time is DENIED. The appeal is
DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Costs of appeal are taxed against appellants.
PER CURIAM
-2-