Joe Watson and CCB Home Investors III, L.L.C. v. Richard Tomlinson Vivan Mouton Tomlinson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Joe Watson and CCB Home Investors III, L.L.C. v. Richard Tomlinson Vivan Mouton Tomlinson

DecidedDecember 10, 2009

Docket14-09-00898-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Joe Watson and CCB Home Investors III, L.L.C. v. Richard Tomlinson Vivan Mouton Tomlinson (Joe Watson and CCB Home Investors III, L.L.C. v. Richard Tomlinson Vivan Mouton Tomlinson) 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.

Bluebook

Joe Watson and CCB Home Investors III, L.L.C. v. Richard Tomlinson Vivan Mouton Tomlinson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 10, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00898-CV

JOE WATSON and CCB HOME INVESTORS III, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

RICHARD TOMLINSON and VIVIAN MOUTON TOMLINSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No.2009-14810

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order signed September 14, 2009, appointing a receiver to sell the property that is the subject of the underling suit. The notice of appeal was filed October 6, 2009. On November 3, 2009, appellants filed a motion in this court seeking an injunction or stay of the trial court’s order pending resolution of this appeal.

To date, our records show that appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in court of appeals); Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same). In addition, the court learned that appellant’s counsel, William Funk, had his law license administratively suspended.

This court ordered appellants’ counsel to demonstrate that his license to practice law had been reinstated from the administrative suspension and we ordered appellants to pay the appellate filing fee on or before November 13, 2009. After being given the requisite notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant has not paid the filing fee in accordance with our order.^{^[1]} See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with order or notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. Appellants’ motion for injunction is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Sullivan.

^{^[1]}Appellants’ counsel did not respond to this court’s order concerning the status of his law license. The website for the State Bar of Texas reflects that counsel is now eligible to practice law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 10, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00898-CV

JOE WATSON and CCB HOME INVESTORS III, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

RICHARD TOMLINSON and VIVIAN MOUTON TOMLINSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No.2009-14810

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order signed September 14, 2009, appointing a receiver to sell the property that is the subject of the underling suit. The notice of appeal was filed October 6, 2009. On November 3, 2009, appellants filed a motion in this court seeking an injunction or stay of the trial court’s order pending resolution of this appeal.

To date, our records show that appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in court of appeals); Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same). In addition, the court learned that appellant’s counsel, William Funk, had his law license administratively suspended.

This court ordered appellants’ counsel to demonstrate that his license to practice law had been reinstated from the administrative suspension and we ordered appellants to pay the appellate filing fee on or before November 13, 2009. After being given the requisite notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant has not paid the filing fee in accordance with our order.^{^[1]} See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with order or notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. Appellants’ motion for injunction is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Sullivan.

^{^[1]}Appellants’ counsel did not respond to this court’s order concerning the status of his law license. The website for the State Bar of Texas reflects that counsel is now eligible to practice law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joe Watson and CCB Home Investors III, L.L.C. v. Richard Tomlinson Vivan Mouton Tomlinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-watson-and-ccb-home-investors-iii-llc-v-richar-texapp-2009.