Robert Holeman Twist v. McAllen National Bank and Brenda Farmer Griggs F/K/A Brenda F. Twist

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 7, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00613-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-04-613-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________               __________________

ROBERT HOLEMAN TWIST,                                       Appellant,

                                           v.

McALLEN NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.,                           Appellees.

________________________________________               _________________

                   On appeal from the 92^nd  District Court

                           of Hidalgo County, Texas.

__________________________________________               _______________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                    Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Robert Holeman Twist attempts to appeal an order entered by the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-3690-99-A.  Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant's notice of appeal was due on May 29, 2002, but was not filed until May 3, 2004.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.  Appellant=s notice of appeal failed to comply with rule 25.1(e).  See id. 9.5, 25.1(e).  Appellant failed to pay his filing fee.

The Clerk of the Court gave appellant notice of these defects so that steps could be taken to correct the defects, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that if the defects were not corrected, the appeal would be dismissed.        Appellant filed a response to this Court's notice which was received on December 14, 2004.  In that response, appellant contended that the order subject to appeal was interlocutory.  Appellant requested abatement of the appeal.  Appellant did not file an amended notice of appeal and did not pay his filing fee for the notice of appeal.  On January 31, 2005, and again on April 12, 2005, the Clerk of the Court again notified appellant that the filing fee still had not been paid and the appeal was subject to dismissal if the fee was not paid.    As of this date, appellant has not filed an amended notice of appeal and has not paid his filing fee for the notice of appeal.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with the appellate rules.  See  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 7^th day of July, 2005.