Mary L. Cathcart v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion by chief justice wright)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 18, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01682-CV MARY L. CATHCART, Appellant V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-00007-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellee s March 27, 2013 motion to dismiss. Appellee contends the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant did not file a response to the motion. By letter dated February 12, 2013, the Court informed appellant that her brief was past due. We instructed appellant to file her brief along with an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file her brief with an extension motion within the time specified would result in dismissal of her appeal without further notice. As of today s date, appellant has not filed a brief. Accordingly, we grant appellee s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(c). /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 121682F.P05 S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MARY L. CATHCART, Appellant No. 05-12-01682-CV On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-00007-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis, participating. V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee In accordance with this Court s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, MARY L. CATHCART. Judgment entered April 18, 2013. /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 1201682.R.docx 2

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.