COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00223-CV
Lurea Hornbuckle § From County Court at Law No. 1
v. § of Tarrant County (2012-002389-1)
Bank of America, N.A. Successor by § February 7, 2013
Merger to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP f/k/a Country Wide
Home Loans Servicing, LP § Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.
It is further ordered that appellant Lurea Hornbuckle shall pay all costs of
this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00223-CV
LUREA HORNBUCKLE APPELLANT
V.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. APPELLEE
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING,
LP F/K/A COUNTRY WIDE HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP
----------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
The trial court signed a judgment of possession in this case in favor of
Appellee Bank of America, N.A. on May 24, 2012. Proceeding pro se, Appellant
Lurea Hornbuckle filed notice of this appeal five days later. On July 31, the trial
court clerk advised this court that Hornbuckle had not made arrangements to pay
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
for the clerk’s record on appeal, and the clerk of this court notified Hornbuckle by
letter on August 1 that her appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if
she did not make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. Hornbuckle
provided proof of payment for the clerk’s record on August 13, and the appeal
proceeded.
On September 27, the court reporter advised this court that Hornbuckle
had requested but had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record.
This court thus advised Hornbuckle by letter that same day that we would
consider and decide those issues not requiring a reporter’s record unless she
presented proof of payment for the reporter’s record by October 8. Hornbuckle
failed to do so, and we notified Hornbuckle by letter that her brief would be due
on November 12 but that the court would only consider and decide those issues
that did not require a reporter’s record.
By motion filed November 5, Hornbuckle requested an extension of time to
file her appellant’s brief. This court granted the motion in part and ordered that
Hornbuckle’s brief be filed on or before December 12.
By motion filed December 6, Hornbuckle sought another extension of time
to file her appellant’s brief but also requested other forms of relief including
requests for consolidation of this appeal with an ongoing trial court proceeding
and for supplementation of the appellate record “to allow appellants to produce
chain of title proving ownership of property, and for appellees to prove legal
interest in property with relevant documents.” This court granted Hornbuckle’s
3
motion in part on December 13, granting an extension of time for filing an
amended brief but denying all other relief requested.
The December 13 order noted that Hornbuckle had filed her initial brief on
December 12, and the order specifically listed the numerous deficiencies within
the brief, noting its noncompliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(h), 38.1(a), (c), (d), (f), (g), (i), (k). The December 13
order granted Hornbuckle an extension of time until January 7, 2013, to file an
amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure and this
court’s local rules. The order also advised Hornbuckle that her failure to do so
could result in the striking of her brief, the waiver of noncomplying issues, or the
dismissal of the appeal.
Hornbuckle filed an amended brief on January 7, but the amended brief
also did not comply with rule of appellate procedure 38.1 in that it did not include
record references, a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, or a
compliant appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(h), 38.1(d), (g), (i), (k). In short, a
review of Hornbuckle’s amended brief reveals that it is defective in substance
and form and fails to present arguments that will enable this court to decide the
case. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a), 42.3; see also Mendoza v. Fiesta Mart, Inc.,
No. 02-12-00324-CV, 2013 WL 260923, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 24,
2013, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (striking appellant’s amended, noncompliant brief
and dismissing appeal).
4
Rule 38.9 provides that “substantial compliance” with the briefing rules is
required. Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. If an appellate court determines that the briefing
rules have been flagrantly violated as to form, the court may require the appellant
to amend, supplement, or redraw her brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). If the
appellant files another brief that does not comply, the court may strike the brief,
prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party did not file a
brief. Id.
Accordingly, because this court has informed Hornbuckle of the substantial
defects in her brief and has provided multiple extensions of time to file a
compliant brief, and because Hornbuckle has failed to file an amended brief that
substantially complies with the requirements of rule 38 or that presents
arguments that will enable this court to decide her appeal, we strike each of
Hornbuckle’s briefs and dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1),
38.9(a), 42.3(c), 43.2(f); Newman v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2003, no pet.).
Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DELIVERED: February 7, 2013
5
Lurea Hornbuckle v. Bank of America, N.A. Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP F/K/A Country Wide Home Loans Servicing, LP
Combined Opinion