MARTHA STEVENS, Appellant v. RICHARD W. STEVENS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

DISMISS; Opinion issued December 28, 2009
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01246-CV
............................
MARTHA STEVENS, Appellant
V.
RICHARD W. STEVENS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 296-53644-06
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Richter, and Francis
        By letter dated September 23, 2009, the Court notified appellant that her brief was overdue and directed her to file, within ten days, both her brief and a motion to extend time to file her brief. On October 5, 2009, the Court received, by facsimile transmission, appellant's motion to extend time to file her brief and on October 7, 2009 we received the original of the motion. However, appellant did not pay either the fax fee or the motion filing fee although she was notified that she was required to make those payments before the extension motion would be filed. Therefore, by letter dated November 12, 2009, we again notified appellant that her brief was overdue. We further notified appellant that the Court would not rule on her motion to extend time to file her brief until she had paid the required fax fee and $10 filing fee. We directed appellant to both tender her brief and to pay the required fees within ten days of the date of the letter. We warned appellant that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not tendered her brief, paid the required fees, or otherwise communicated with the Court regarding her appeal.
        Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
071246F.P05
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.