Cecil A. Sedberry and Bonnie M. Sedberry v. Helen Lorraine Scattergood--Appeal from 220th District Court of Bosque County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-99-369-CV

CECIL A. SEDBERRY

AND BONNIE M. SEDBERRY,

Appellants

v.

HELEN LORRAINE SCATTERGOOD,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court # 99-05-11899BCCV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The driveway to Helen Lorraine Scattergood s home crosses the western twenty-five feet of property owned by Cecil A. Sedberry and Bonnie M. Sedberry. The Sedberrys advised Scattergood that she could no longer use this driveway. She filed suit to enjoin them from interfering with her continued use of the driveway. The court granted the relief requested, and the Sedberrys appealed.

The Sedberrys timely filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 1999. The clerk s record was filed on January 5, 2000. The Sedberrys failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the court reporter s fee for preparation of the reporter s record after being warned of the need to do so by letter dated March 16. Accordingly, we advised them on April 6 that their appeal would be limited to issues which do not require a reporter s record for decision and that they had thirty days within which to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2). To date, no brief has been filed.

Appellate Rule 38.8(a)(1) provides that if appellants fail to timely file their 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 Sedberrys' brief was due. We notified them of this defect by letter on May 18 and warned them that their appeal would be dismissed if they failed to file a brief or other response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 44.3. The Sedberrys have not responded to this letter. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1). Costs are taxed against the Sedberrys.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed June 14, 2000

Do not publish