Mary Brown Hogg v. Builders Capital, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Mary Brown Hogg v. Builders Capital, Ltd.

DecidedDecember 11, 2014

Docket12-14-00307-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Mary Brown Hogg v. Builders Capital, Ltd. (Mary Brown Hogg v. Builders Capital, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mary Brown Hogg v. Builders Capital, Ltd., (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-14-00307-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MARY BROWN HOGG, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BUILDERS CAPITAL, LTD., APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on September 25, 2014. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, which failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment. On October 27, 2014, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). She was further notified that unless she filed an amended notice of appeal on or before November 26, 2014, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Appellant has not corrected her defective notice of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12–04–00004–CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12–03–00442–CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op). Opinion delivered December 10, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 10, 2014

MARY BROWN HOGG, Appellant V. BUILDERS CAPITAL, LTD., Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 11-3112-A)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

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

NO. 12-14-00307-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MARY BROWN HOGG, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BUILDERS CAPITAL, LTD., APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on September 25, 2014. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, which failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment. On October 27, 2014, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). She was further notified that unless she filed an amended notice of appeal on or before November 26, 2014, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Appellant has not corrected her defective notice of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12–04–00004–CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12–03–00442–CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op). Opinion delivered December 10, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 10, 2014

MARY BROWN HOGG, Appellant V. BUILDERS CAPITAL, LTD., Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 11-3112-A)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mary Brown Hogg v. Builders Capital, Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-brown-hogg-v-builders-capital-ltd-texapp-2014.