Louis Charles Bundage v. Lela Mae Attaway

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 10, 2005
• Docket: 14-05-01027-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2005

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-01027-CV

LOUIS CHARLES BUNDAGE, Appellant

V.

LELA MAE ATTAWAY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 05-34253

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

According to appellant=s notice of appeal, this is an attempted appeal is from an August 16, 2005 order denying appellant=s motion for default judgment.^[1]  No clerk=s record has been filed.  The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On October 27, 2005, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).  On October 28, 2005, appellant filed a response to this court=s notice in which he asserted he is unable to pay any costs at this time.

Appellant=s response does not comply with the requirements for establishing indigence as set forth in the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(b) (setting forth required contents of affidavit of indigence); 20.1(c) (requiring affidavit to be filed in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal).  Therefore, appellant is not entitled to proceed without the advance payment of costs.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Anderson.

---

^[1]  While it appears that this court may lack jurisdiction over this attempted appeal from an interlocutory order, jurisdiction cannot be ascertained in the absence of a clerk=s record.