Michael L. Foglio v. Maria Luisa Sanchez Portilla and Rental Property Professionals
This text of Michael L. Foglio v. Maria Luisa Sanchez Portilla and Rental Property Professionals (Michael L. Foglio v. Maria Luisa Sanchez Portilla and Rental Property Professionals) 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-23-00573-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
MICHAEL L. FOGLIO, Appellant,
v.
MARIA LUISA SANCHEZ PORTILLA AND RENTAL PROPERTY PROFESSIONALS, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. 1 On November 28, 2023,
appellant filed a notice of appeal. On December 13, 2023, the Clerk of the Court requested
1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket
equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. appellant to remit a $205.00 filing fee within ten days from the date of the notice. On
December 14, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant the amended notice of
appeal did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(1).
See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(1). On January 24, 2024, the Clerk of the Court again
notified appellant of the delinquent filing fee and defects in his notice of appeal.
Furthermore, appellant was notified that if the defects on the notice of appeal were not
corrected within ten days or if the payment was not submitted within ten days, the appeal
would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).
Appellant has not paid the filing fee, has failed to cure the defects in the notice of
appeal, and has not otherwise responded to the notices from the Clerk of the Court
requiring a response or other action within the time specified; accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(c).
DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the 25th day of April, 2024.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael L. Foglio v. Maria Luisa Sanchez Portilla and Rental Property Professionals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-l-foglio-v-maria-luisa-sanchez-portilla-and-rental-property-texapp-2024.