Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine

Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 7, 2005

Deirdre Murphy Alameddine v. Jihad Alameddine

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION



No. 04-05-00632-CV


Deirdre Murphy ALAMEDDINE,

Appellant


v.


Jihad ALAMEDDINE,

Appellee


From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI-18273

Honorable Carol H. Knight-Sheen, Judge Presiding


PER CURIAM

 

Sitting:            Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed:   December 7, 2005


DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

            The clerk’s record was due to be filed in this appeal on October 3, 2005. On that date, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record, and appellant had failed to pay the fee. Our records reflected that the appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay the costs of the appeal; however, the trial court timely sustained the contest to the affidavit and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.

            On October 7, 2005, we ordered appellant to provide proof that the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee. On October 17, 2005, appellant responded with an advisory that a hearing had been set on her motion for new trial. In view of the pending hearing, we extended the date for appellant to respond to our order of October 7, 2005, and ordered appellant to respond no later than November 7, 2005. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

            On October 31, 2005, a copy of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for new trial was filed in this court. Appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM


 

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