Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2001

Marilyn Ware and Husband William Jack Ware v. Madisonville Health Care...

Marilyn Ware and Husband William Jack Ware v. Madisonville Health Care...
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 30, 2001

Marilyn Ware and Husband William Jack Ware v. Madisonville Health Care...

Opinion







IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-00-343-CV

 

     MARILYN WARE AND HUSBAND

     WILLIAM JACK WARE, 

                                                                              Appellants

     v.


     MADISONVILLE HEALTH CARE

     INVESTORS, L.P. D/B/A BRAME

     SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION

     CENTER, A DIVISION OF BRAME

     ASSOCIATES INC.,

                                                                              Appellees



From the 278th District Court

Madison County, Texas

Trial Court # 97-8231-278-10

                                                                                                                

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                                

      Marilyn and William Ware filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2001. On February 27, 2001, we notified the clerk that the record was past due. The clerk notified us that her failure to file the clerk’s record was due to the appellants’ failure to pay for the preparation of that record. On March 8, we warned the appellants that failure to make arrangements for payment of the clerk’s fee would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). We have not received a response.

      Appellate Rule 37.3(b) provides that if an appellant fails to pay the clerk’s fee for preparation of the clerk’s record, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. The court must give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to cure before dismissal.


Id.

      More than sixty days have passed since we requested the appellants to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee. Having received no response, we accordingly dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 37.3(b). Costs are taxed against the appellants.

 

                                                                   PER CURIAM


Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2001

Do not publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.