Kevin Patrick Dunne v. Yunmei Chen

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 5, 2022
• Docket: 02-22-00028-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00028-CV ___________________________

KEVIN PATRICK DUNNE, Appellant

V.

YUNMEI CHEN, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV-2021-04341-JP

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 18, 2022, appellant Kevin Dunne filed a notice of appeal from the

trial court’s January 10, 2022 judgment awarding possession of leased premises in

Little Elm, Texas.

Three times we have notified appellant that his notice of appeal is defective. In

our last letter, dated March 30, 2022, we told appellant,

On January 24 and March 2, 2022, the court notified you that your notice of appeal is defective, identified the defects, and directed you to file an amended notice of appeal. We have received no response. Accordingly, you are once more directed to file an amended notice of appeal that complies with Rule 25.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in this court on or before Friday, April 11, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d), (g). If you do not file an amended notice of appeal on or [before] Friday, April 11, 2022[,] your appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f), 44.3.

Appellant has failed to respond to all correspondence from this court.

Additionally, the trial court’s online docket shows that a writ of possession for the

premises issued on January 21, 2022, and that it was executed on January 31, 2022.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f); Wilson v. Bluffs at

Paradise Creek, No. 02-14-00196-CV, 2015 WL 9598921, at *1 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth

Dec. 31, 2015, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal as moot

when appellee had recovered premises according to writ of possession and appellant had

not challenged judgment’s award of back rent and attorney’s fees in the appeal).

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 5, 2022