John C. Peyton; Mark A. Peyton; David N. Peyton; Estate of George C. Peyton, Jr.; and Matthew H. Peyton v. Paul Pressler, Aileen Townes Peyton McHenry Jones, and Edgar Goss Townes, Individually and as Trustees of the Elsie G. Townes 1971 Trust Number FIve (5); and Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.--Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Harris County

Opinion issued March 30, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-04-00489-CV

____________

JOHN C. PEYTON, MARK A. PEYTON, DAVID N. PEYTON, ESTATE OF GEORGE C. PEYTON JR., and MATTHEW H. PEYTON, Appellants

V.

PAUL PRESSLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT; AILEEN TOWNES PEYTON MCHENRY JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT; EDGAR GOSS TOWNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT; and FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, L.L.P., Appellees

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 330484401

MEMORANDUM OPINIONOn July 15, 2004, this Court dismissed appellants appeal for failure to pay the $125 filing fee. On August 10, 2004, we struck appellants motion for rehearing because it did not contain a certificate of conference. On August 27, 2004, we struck appellants second motion for rehearing because it did not include the requisite $10 filing fee. On September 24, 2004, we granted appellants third motion for rehearing and reinstated the appeal. Appellants brief was due on October 24, 2004. On October 25, 2004, appellants filed a motion to extend time to file their appellants brief, which this Court granted until November 23, 2004.

On December 26, 2004, over a month after appellants brief was due, appellants filed a second motion for extension of time. Concurrently therewith, appellants filed their original appellants brief. On January 10, 2005, this Court struck appellants brief because the font in the brief was improperly sized. On February 28, 2005, appellant filed an amended brief. On March 18, 2005, appellees filed a motion to strike appellants amended brief. On May 18, 2005, this Court struck appellant s amended brief because (1) the font size was still incorrect; (2) did not contain appropriate citations to authorities and to the record, (3) made references to items not in the summary judgment record, and (4) made arguments without citing where the arguments were supported in the summary judgment record. This Court gave appellants until June 18, 2005, to file a second amended brief.

On June 20, 2005, appellants filed a second amended brief. On July 18, appellees filed a motion to strike appellants second amended brief. On August 2, 2005, this Court struck appellants second amended brief because it still contained improper font size and did not cite where in the record support for their arguments could be found. This Court ordered appellants to file a third amended brief using 13-point or larger font size type and citing to the place in the record where support for their arguments could be found. The third amended brief was due August 2, 2005, but was not filed by that date.

On September 13, 2005, appellees filed a motion to dismiss based on appellants failure to timely file a third amended brief, as ordered by the Court. On November 10, over three months after the brief was ordered filed in this Court, appellants filed a third amended brief. // On November 30, 2005, appellees filed a joint (1) motion to strike appellants third amended brief, (2) motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, and (3) motion of extension of time to file their appellees brief. On December 19, 2005, this Court granted the motion to strike appellants third amended brief. Appellants third amended brief was almost identical to the second amended brief, which had been previously struck. After twice being admonished by this Court to include citations to the summary judgment record to show where in the record support for their arguments could be found, appellants still failed to do so in their third amended brief. We also granted appellees an extension of time to file their brief. We now consider appellees motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

Appellants have been given multiple opportunities to cure their briefing defects. As of this date more than a year after appellants original brief due date of November 23, 2004 no conforming brief has been filed. Accordingly, we GRANT appellees motion to dismiss and DISMISS the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). We OVERRULE all other pending motions.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Alcala.