Zenaw Batihun Mersha v. Genet G. Mersha

Court of Appeals of Texas

Zenaw Batihun Mersha v. Genet G. Mersha

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 17, 2006·No. 03-04-00378-CV·Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00378-CV

Zenaw Batihun Mersha, Appellant

v.

Genet G. Mersha, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. FM202911, HONORABLE CHARLES F. CAMPBELL JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 9, 2004, we abated this appeal because the district court’s divorce decree did not address the division of property and, therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was prematurely filed. Appellant filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing an amended final decree of divorce on September 30, 2005. Appellant has not filed a brief. On January 26, 2006, this Court requested that appellant submit a status report in writing no later that February 10. Our request notified appellant that, the “failure to comply will result in dismissal for want of prosecution.”

Appellant has not replied to our request. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: February 17, 2006

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00378-CV

Zenaw Batihun Mersha, Appellant

v.

Genet G. Mersha, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. FM202911, HONORABLE CHARLES F. CAMPBELL JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 9, 2004, we abated this appeal because the district court’s divorce decree did not address the division of property and, therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was prematurely filed. Appellant filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing an amended final decree of divorce on September 30, 2005. Appellant has not filed a brief. On January 26, 2006, this Court requested that appellant submit a status report in writing no later that February 10. Our request notified appellant that, the “failure to comply will result in dismissal for want of prosecution.”

Appellant has not replied to our request. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: February 17, 2006

Zenaw Batihun Mersha v. Genet G. Mersha, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Zenaw Batihun Mersha v. Genet G. Mersha (Zenaw Batihun Mersha v. Genet G. Mersha) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.