Peggy Blakely v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-10-00129-CV

 

Peggy Blakely,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

                                                                                    Appellee

 

 


From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-C-3308

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion


 

            The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed on April 1, 2010.  Because no record was made of the hearing to which this appeal pertains, a brief from Peggy Blakely was due May 3, 2010.  It was not filed. 

            On April 19, 2010, the Clerk of this Court warned Blakely that the docketing statement had not been filed.  On May 5, Blakely requested a continuance.  What appellant wanted continued was not clear from her motion.  Her request was granted, however, as to both items that were past due on the date the motion was filed.  Blakely’s brief and docketing statement were due 30 days from the date of the order granting the continuance.

            Blakely was also warned that the failure to file the docketing statement or brief, or to timely and properly seek an extension of time to file either, would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notification for failure to comply with the order or a notice from the Clerk.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

            More than 30 days have passed and we have not received a docketing statement or brief, or a timely and properly sought extension of time to file either.  Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  Id.

 

                                                                        TOM GRAY

                                                                        Chief Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Reyna, and

            Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 30, 2010

[CV06]

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

      Because both parties are “appellants” within the meaning of Rule 42.1(a)(1), the parties’ joint dismissal motion satisifies the requirements of the appellate rules. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with costs to be taxed against the party incurring same.


                                                                   PER CURIAM


Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 12, 2003

[CV06]