David Darell Galbraith and Vivian Marie Galbraith v. Natalia Harris and Margie Harris
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00404-CV
David Darell GALBRAITH and Vivian Marie Galbraith, Appellants
v.
Natalia HARRIS and Margie Harris, Appellees
From the County Court at Law #10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 366235 Honorable Irene Rios, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 22, 2012
DISMISSED
Appellants’ brief was originally due to be filed in this appeal on October 12, 2011. The
appellants filed two motions requesting extensions of time to file the brief, and this court granted
both motions, extending the deadline for filing the brief by a total of seventy-nine (79) days to
December 30, 2011. By order dated January 10, 2012, this court noted that the appellants timely
filed their brief by the extended deadline; however, the brief failed to comply with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure, most notably the statement of facts and argument sections of the 04-11-00404-CV
brief did not contain references or citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i).
Appellants were ordered to file an amended brief in compliance with the rules by January 17,
2012.
On January 18, 2012, appellants filed a motion which this court construed as a motion to
reconsider our January 10, 2012 order. On January 20, 2012, appellees filed a motion requesting
this court to dismiss the appeal, noting that appellants failed to comply with the deadline given
by the court to file the amended brief. On January 25, 2012, appellants filed a motion to deny
the appellees’ motion to dismiss.
By order dated January 25, 2012, this court granted in part appellants’ motion which the
court construed as a motion to reconsider our January 10, 2012 order. Appellants were ordered
to file their amended brief, containing citations to the clerk’s record and reporter’s record to
support the statements made in the statement of facts and arguments sections of the brief, no later
than February 3, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). Appellants were instructed that the brief
could not exceed fifty pages, and the amended brief was required to include an appendix
containing the judgment or order being appealed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.4, TEX. R. APP. P.
38.1(k)(1)(A). The order stated, “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR MOTIONS
WITH REGARD TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.”
On January 27, 2012, this court denied appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. Because
this court independently decided to deny appellees’ motion, appellants’ motion to deny the
appellees’ motion to dismiss was rendered moot.
Appellants failed to file the amended brief by February 3, 2012, which was 114 days past
the original due date. Instead, on February 6, 2012, appellants filed an objection to this court’s
orders, despite this court’s prior order that no further motions would be granted with regard to
-2- 04-11-00404-CV
appellants’ brief. Rather than immediately ruling on the objection and dismissing the appeal, this
court waited an additional week to determine whether appellants would comply with the prior
order and file an amended brief. No amended brief has been filed; however, on February 7,
2012, appellees filed a second motion to dismiss the appeal. Because appellants failed to comply
with this court’s order to file an amended brief, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.8(a), 38.9, 42.3. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is moot.
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
David Darell Galbraith and Vivian Marie Galbraith v. Natalia Harris and Margie Harris (David Darell Galbraith and Vivian Marie Galbraith v. Natalia Harris and Margie Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.