Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2007

Blanca Estela Bejarano and Armando Bejarano v. Oliphant Financial Corporation

Blanca Estela Bejarano and Armando Bejarano v. Oliphant Financial Corporation
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 24, 2007

Blanca Estela Bejarano and Armando Bejarano v. Oliphant Financial Corporation

Opinion









NUMBER 13-07-028-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________



BLANCA ESTELA BEJARANO AND

ARMANDO BEJARANO, Appellants,



v.



OLIPHANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________



On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



Appellants, BLANCA ESTELA BEJARANO AND ARMANDO BEJARANO, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL-05-1619-A. No clerk's record has been filed due to appellants' failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk's record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On February 16, 2007, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants' failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparing the clerk's record, this Court's notice, and appellants' failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM



Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 24th day of May, 2007.





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