Marlena Freeman v. Arkitektura Development, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 31, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00646-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 31, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00646-CV ——————————— MARLENA FREEMAN, Appellant V. ARKITEKTURA DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-49393

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Marlena Freeman, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

July 29, 2024 final judgment. Appellant has neither paid the required fees nor

established indigence for purposes of costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP.

P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a); Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals,

and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No.

15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On September 20, 2024, appellant was notified that

this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence

was not established, by October 21, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Appellant did not adequately respond.

Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the

preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). On November 4,

2024, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant did

not submit written evidence that she had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee

for the preparation of the clerk’s record by December 4, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond.

Based on appellant’s failure to pay appellate costs or pay the fee for

preparation of the clerk’s record, on December 10, 2024, appellee, Arkitektura

Development, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellee’s motion does not include a certificate of conference indicating whether

appellant is opposed to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). However, more

than ten days have passed, and appellant has not responded to appellee’s motion to

dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

2 Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for

nonpayment of all required fees and want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5,

42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.