Ronald E. Powdrell v. Chase Mortgage Co., Chemical Mortgage--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Dallas County
Annotate this CaseIN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-00-154-CV
RONALD E. POWDRELL,
Appellant
v.
CHASE MORTGAGE CO.,
F/K/A CHEMICAL MORTGAGE,
Appellees
From the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court # CC-00-720-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chase Mortgage Co. brought a forcible detainer suit in a Dallas County Justice Court against Ronald Powdrell after Powdrell refused to vacate property Chase acquired at a foreclosure sale. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 24.002 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Powdrell failed to answer Chase s petition and the Justice of the Peace rendered a default judgment against him awarding Chase possession of the property. Powdrell appealed to the Dallas County Court at Law No. 2, but again failed to file a written answer even though he had been advised to file one as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 751. The County Court at Law rendered a default judgment against Powdrell awarding possession of the property to Chase and again he filed an appeal from that judgment.
The Clerk s Record was filed on March 10, 2000. Powdrell has not requested a Reporter s Record; thus, his brief was due thirty days after the Clerk s Record was filed, i.e., by April 10, 2000. Powdrell has not filed a brief, a motion for extension of time, or any other document with this Court since his appeal was filed.
On June 9, 2000, Chase filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution, arguing that Powdrell s failure to file a brief, move for an extension, or offer any excuse for his failure to do so constitutes want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Although we have waited for nearly a month to rule upon the motion, Powdrell has not responded to Chase s request.
Therefore, we grant Chase s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 2000
Do not publish
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.