From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howse-Rohmfeld v. Rohmfeld

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Aug 30, 2017
NUMBER 13-17-00305-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2017)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-17-00305-CV

08-30-2017

HEATHER HOWSE-ROHMFELD, Appellant, v. MATTHEW ROHMFELD, Appellee.


On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras

Appellant Heather Howse-Rohmfeld, proceeding pro se, appealed a final decree of divorce entered as a result of a mediated settlement agreement in trial court cause number 2015-FAM-1287-A in the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. This matter is now before the Court because appellant has failed to pay the filing fee for this appeal and has failed to correct her defective notice of appeal.

On June 16, 2017, the Clerk of this Court advised appellant that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d), subsections (1), (2), and (4); 25.1(e); 9.5; and 9.1(b); and requested correction of these defects within thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d),(e), 9.5, 9.1, 37.1, 42.3(b),(c). The Clerk advised appellant that if the notice of appeal was not correctly filed, the matter would be referred to the Court for further action. The Clerk further requested appellant to pay the $205.00 filing fee for the appeal within ten days. Appellant did not file a corrected notice of appeal, pay the filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court's notice.

On July 11, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that she was delinquent in remitting the $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk directed appellant to pay this fee within ten days, and informed appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the fee was not paid within that period of time. Appellant did not pay the fee or otherwise respond to the Clerk's notice.

On July 25, 2017, the Court again advised appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with these rules and requested correction of the defects within ten days. The Court advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured. Appellant did not file a corrected notice of appeal or otherwise respond to this Court's notice.

On its own motion, with ten days' notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

DORI CONTRERAS

Justice Delivered and filed the 30th day of August, 2017.


Summaries of

Howse-Rohmfeld v. Rohmfeld

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Aug 30, 2017
NUMBER 13-17-00305-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2017)
Case details for

Howse-Rohmfeld v. Rohmfeld

Case Details

Full title:HEATHER HOWSE-ROHMFELD, Appellant, v. MATTHEW ROHMFELD, Appellee.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Aug 30, 2017

Citations

NUMBER 13-17-00305-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2017)