Brenda F. Francis v. Monty E. Francis--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-95-198-CV

BRENDA F. FRANCIS,

Appellant

v.

MONTY E. FRANCIS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 950061 CV1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brenda Francis appealed from a judgment in the amount of $11,763.10 awarded to Monty Francis as compensation for damages to Monty's car after they were involved in a car wreck. The transcript was filed in this court on June 12, 1995, but no statement of facts has been filed. Tex. R. App. P. 54(a), 83. Although Brenda's brief was due on July 12, no appellant's brief has been filed. Id. 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

Id. 74(l)(1).

More than thirty days have passed since the Brenda's brief was due. We notified her of this defect by letter on October 24. Id. 60(a)(2), 83. She responded to our letter by checking out the transcript and holding it until we ordered her to return it to our clerk. After she returned the transcript, she filed a document entitled "Defendant's Original Answer," which is a replica of her original answer filed in the trial court, a letter addressed to this court that alleges she cannot afford to hire an attorney to prosecute this appeal, and a document purporting to show that Monty did not own the damaged car.

Brenda has failed to show a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file her brief. Id. 74(l)(1). "Litigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules . . . ." Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Levada Hughes and Occupants v. Habitat, 880 S.W.2d 5, 9 (Tex. App. Dallas 1992, no writ); Stum v. Stum, 845 S.W.2d 407, 414 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1992, no writ); Kimmell v. Leoffler, 791 S.W.2d 648, 652 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1990, writ denied). The documents she has filed are neither a brief nor a response to our notice. Thus, we dismiss this cause for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed December 13, 1995

Do not publish