Thomas C. Moore, Jr. and Susan M. Moore v. W.R. Coffey, Trustee for Moody Land Company--Appeal from 77th District Court of Freestone County

Thomas C. Moore, Jr. and Susan M. Moore v. W.R. Coffey, Trustee for Moody Land Company /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

 

No. 10-99-316-CV

 

THOMAS C. MOORE, JR.

AND SUSAN M. MOORE,

Appellants

v.

 

W.R. COFFEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

TRUSTEE FOR MOODY LAND COMPANY,

Appellee

 

 

From the 77th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 99-139-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

W. R. Coffey, individually and as trustee for Moody Land Company, sought a permanent injunction against Thomas Charles Moore, Jr. and his wife Susan to compel their compliance with certain deed restrictions governing the property the Moores are purchasing by contract for deed from Moody Land Company. The court signed and entered an order granting the requested injunction on September 2, 1999.

The Moores timely filed their pro se notice of appeal on September 22. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1). The clerk s record was filed in this Court on October 12. The court reporter advised the Court that she had not filed the reporter s record because the Moores had never requested it. Accordingly, we informed the Moores by letter dated November 22 that their appeal would be submitted on the clerk s record alone unless they requested the preparation of the reporter s record within ten days. Id. 37.3(c)(1). The Moores never acted on the November 22 letter. Accordingly, we notified them by letter dated December 15 that their appeal would be submitted on the clerk s record alone. Id.

Although their brief was due on January 14, 2000, the Moores have not filed an appellant s brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file his brief, the Court may:

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant s failure to timely file a brief.

 

Id. 38.8(a)(1).

More than thirty days have passed since the Moores brief was due. We notified them of this defect by letter on January 28. Id. 42.3, 44.3. They have not responded to our letter by requesting an extension or showing grounds for continuing the appeal, nor have they provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief. Id. 42.3, 38.8(a)(1). Therefore, this appeal

 

is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed February 23, 2000

Do not publish