Karen Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 5, 2013·No. 14-12-00686-CV·Published

Opinion

Order filed March 5, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00686-CV

KAREN WAKEFIELD, Appellant

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-59422

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was filed on February 25, 2013. The Court has determined that appellant has not properly presented this cause in his brief on file. Appellant failed to substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In particular, appellant has failed to provide a clear and concise argument for each contention made with appropriate citations to the record and to authority. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h).

Litigants who appear pro se must comply with the applicable procedural rules and are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Steffan v. Steffan, 29 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 38.9(b), the court orders appellant to file a corrected brief complying with the rules of appellate procedure on or before April 4, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). If appellant fails to file his brief on or before April 4, 2013, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

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

Karen Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Karen Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Karen Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steffan v. Steffan
29 S.W.3d 627 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn
573 S.W.2d 181 (Texas Supreme Court, 1978)