Mellissa Pea and William Criddle v. Midfirst Bank

Opinion

NUMBER 13-22-00118-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MELLISSA PEA AND WILLIAM CRIDDLE, Appellants,

v.

MIDFIRST BANK, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Pro se appellants Mellissa Pea and William Criddle filed a notice of appeal from a

final judgment signed on March 18, 2022. On March 25, 2022, this Court advised

appellants that their notice of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d) (2, 4), and requested appellants to correct these defects. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 25.1(d) (2, 4). Appellants did not correct the defects in their notice of appeal.

On May 5, 2022, this Court notified appellants that they had not corrected the

defects in their notice of appeal and advised appellants that the appeal would be

dismissed if the defects were not corrected within ten days. See id. R. 42.3. Appellants

neither responded to the Court’s notice nor corrected the defects in their notice of appeal.

Appellate courts possess the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution

when an appellant in a civil case fails to timely file the appellant’s brief and gives no

reasonable explanation for the failure. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1); id. R. 42.3(b); Am. Bail Bonds

v. City of El Paso, 225 S.W.3d 612, 612 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.); Newman v.

Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (per curiam). Similarly,

courts may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution generally or because the appellant

has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice

from the appellate court clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (b), (c).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,

appellants’ failure to respond to the Court’s directives, and appellants’ failure to correct

the defects in their notice of appeal, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of May, 2022.