Diogu Kalu Diogu II v. Yaowapa Ratana Aporn
This text of Diogu Kalu Diogu II v. Yaowapa Ratana Aporn (Diogu Kalu Diogu II v. Yaowapa Ratana Aporn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ORDER
Appellate case name: Diogu Kalu Diogu II v. Yaowapa Ratana Aporn
Appellate case number: 01-17-00392-CV
Trial court case number: 16-DCV-237547
Trial court: 505th District Court of Fort Bend County
Appellant, Diogu Kalu Diogu II, has filed a motion to abate this appeal for the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Although appellant filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 296, the record fails to demonstrate that appellant filed the notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 297. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 297. (“If the court fails to file timely findings of fact and conclusions of law, the party making the request shall, within thirty days after filing the original request, file with the clerk and serve on all other parties in accordance with Rule 21a a ‘Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ which shall be immediately called to the attention of the court by the clerk.”). Failure to file this notice waives the right to complain that the trial court did not file the requested findings. See Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala Cty., 682 S.W.2d 254, 255 (Tex. 1984) (“Without such timely reminder [of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law], [appellant] waived its complaint of the failure on appeal.”); Guillory v. Boykins, 442 S.W.3d 682, 694 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“Because the record does not reveal that [appellant] timely filed a reminder of past-due findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 297, this appellate complaint is waived.”) (citing Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle, 682 S.W.2d at 255- 56). Accordingly, the motion to abate is denied. It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown Acting individually
Date: February 15, 2018
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Diogu Kalu Diogu II v. Yaowapa Ratana Aporn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diogu-kalu-diogu-ii-v-yaowapa-ratana-aporn-texapp-2018.