Kimberly Anaipakos v. Demetrios Anaipakos

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kimberly Anaipakos v. Demetrios Anaipakos

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 18, 2025·No. 01-24-00557-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 18, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

a Notice of Cross-Appeal.

The clerk’s record was due to be filed by August 12, 2024.1 On August 16, 2024, the trial court clerk filed an Information Sheet stating Appellant/Cross-Appellee had been notified that the clerk’s record was ready but had made no payment arrangements. We notified Appellant/Cross-Appellee on two occasions that her appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the clerk’s record was not filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(1), (b). Appellant/Cross-Appellee did not respond, and the clerk’s record was not filed.

On February 13, 2025, this Court dismissed Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s appeal for want of prosecution. In the same order, we explained it was now Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s burden to request and pay for the clerk’s record. We also issued a separate order, directing Appellee/Cross-Appellant that his cross- appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the clerk’s record was not filed. We directed Appellee/Cross-Appellant to file a response by February 21, 2025, providing evidence from the trial court that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this cross-appeal was subject to dismissal, Appellee/Cross-Appellant did not file a response demonstrating payment of the fee for the clerk’s record and a clerk’s record has not been filed.

1 The reporter’s record was filed on October 16, 2024.

We dismiss Appellee/Cross-Appellant Demetrios Anaipakos’ cross-appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with notice from Clerk of Court), 43.2(f) (allowing dismissal of appeal). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Morgan.

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

Opinion issued March 18, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

a Notice of Cross-Appeal.

The clerk’s record was due to be filed by August 12, 2024.1 On August 16, 2024, the trial court clerk filed an Information Sheet stating Appellant/Cross-Appellee had been notified that the clerk’s record was ready but had made no payment arrangements. We notified Appellant/Cross-Appellee on two occasions that her appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the clerk’s record was not filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(1), (b). Appellant/Cross-Appellee did not respond, and the clerk’s record was not filed.

On February 13, 2025, this Court dismissed Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s appeal for want of prosecution. In the same order, we explained it was now Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s burden to request and pay for the clerk’s record. We also issued a separate order, directing Appellee/Cross-Appellant that his cross- appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the clerk’s record was not filed. We directed Appellee/Cross-Appellant to file a response by February 21, 2025, providing evidence from the trial court that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this cross-appeal was subject to dismissal, Appellee/Cross-Appellant did not file a response demonstrating payment of the fee for the clerk’s record and a clerk’s record has not been filed.

1 The reporter’s record was filed on October 16, 2024.

We dismiss Appellee/Cross-Appellant Demetrios Anaipakos’ cross-appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with notice from Clerk of Court), 43.2(f) (allowing dismissal of appeal). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Morgan.

Kimberly Anaipakos v. Demetrios Anaipakos, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Kimberly Anaipakos v. Demetrios Anaipakos (Kimberly Anaipakos v. Demetrios Anaipakos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.