In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00401-CV
___________________________
MARVIN L. TROUTMAN, Appellant
V.
NASA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1
Parker County, Texas
Trial Court No. CIV-20-0419
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Marvin L. Troutman appeals from the trial court’s order granting
appellee NASA Federal Credit Union’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for
breach of contract. Because Troutman has failed to file a substantially compliant
brief, to correct the brief even though given the opportunity to do so, and to
reasonably explain the failure, we dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution.
Troutman borrowed $29,952 from NASA and signed a fixed-rate loan
agreement. Troutman accepted the funds but later failed to make the required
installment payments. NASA filed a breach-of-contract suit against Troutman and
moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had conclusively established
Troutman’s breach. Troutman did not respond to the motion.1 The trial court set the
motion for a hearing, but Troutman did not appear. The trial court granted NASA’s
motion, awarded NASA attorney’s fees, and entered final judgment in favor of
NASA. Troutman filed a notice of appeal.
On January 20, 2021, Troutman filed a brief in which he asked this court “to
restrain the public, to exclude the public and press, to proceed ‘Ex Parte’ to hear my
special private equitable cause as a private Citizen of the United States.” He named
1
Shortly after NASA filed its summary-judgment motion, Troutman sent the
trial court clerk a letter discussing his purported status as an “occupant of the office
of surety,” defining “tender” and “surety,” declaring himself “discharged as surety,”
and enclosing $2.00 as a “special deposit.” He did not mention the summary-
judgment motion in the letter.
2
NASA and the trial court clerk as “Defendant(s)” and asserted that they “are
trustees/co-sureties holding trust property that belongs” to Troutman. He included
several “maxims,” a “statement of indenture,” and an “Affidavit of Truth.”
Apparently, Troutman was trying to file an original “special cause” in this court.
We notified Troutman that his brief failed to comply with the majority of the
procedural requirements and required him to file an amended brief correcting the
specified, formal defects no later than February 1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1, 38.9(a),
44.3. We warned that a failure to do so could result in this court striking the brief and
dismissing his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. Troutman has not
responded or corrected his brief.
Troutman’s tendered brief is in flagrant violation of the briefing rules. See Tex.
R. App. P. 38.9(a). Although we warned that we could strike his brief and dismiss his
appeal if he failed to comply, Troutman has not attempted to do so or to reasonably
explain his failure. Accordingly, we strike Troutman’s brief and dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: March 25, 2021
3