Angela Nails v. Mark Frels Appeal from 160th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismiss; Opinion Filed October 28, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00657-CV ANGELA NAILS, Appellant V. MARK FRELS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-15238 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Fillmore, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart Appellant, acting pro se, filed a brief in this case on September 17, 2014. The Court sent a letter to appellant on October 6, 2014, and advised her that her brief did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The letter listed multiple deficiencies with appellant’s brief. The letter also informed appellant that her appeal might be dismissed without further notice if she failed to file an amended brief complying with our rules. Rather than filing an amended brief, appellant sent a letter to the Court stating: “I will not be updating my brief into an amended brief. . . . I want the court to use the brief already mail [sic] to the Court of Appeals.” Because appellant did not file an amended brief and the brief she did file does not comply with our rules, we dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1, 42.3(c). /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE 140657F.P05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANGELA NAILS, Appellant No. 05-14-00657-CV On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-15238. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Brown participating. V. MARK FRELS, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee Mark Frels recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Angela Nails. Judgment entered this 28th day of October, 2015. –3–

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.