Richard Alan Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et.al. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Bank of America, NA, Barrett, Daffin, Turner & Englel, LLP, Deutsche Bank, AG, Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc., and Certificate Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. Trust 2006-HE6, Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE6 Appellate case number: 01-20-00854-CV Trial court case number: 07-DCV-161177 Trial court: 400th District Court of Fort Bend County Appellants, RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase, filed in this Court a motion for leave to proceed as indigent. On February 1, 2021, we abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether appellants, who previously paid the appellate filing fees, may proceed as indigent on appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a), (f). The trial court clerk then filed a supplemental clerk’s record that includes the trial court’s order, signed on February 25, 2021 denying appellants’ motion to proceed as indigent. On March 2, 2021, we reinstated the appeal on the Court’s active docket and ordered appellants to provide written proof within 30 days that they had paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, if applicable. On March 9 and 10, 2021, appellants filed a motion for reconsideration and an amended motion for reconsideration for leave to proceed as indigent, respectively. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(g)(1). Appellants’ motions are untimely. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g)(2) states: The motion [challenging the trial court’s determination on indigency] must be filed within 10 days after the trial court’s order is signed. The court of appeals may extend the deadline by 15 days if the declarant demonstrates good cause for the extension in writing. TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(g)(2). Because appellants’ motions are untimely and appellants have not either requested an extension nor explained the reason for the untimeliness of their motions, we need not review the ruling. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy______________ Acting individually Date: March 11, 2021