Alexander Molina v. Citimortgage, Inc., Et al.--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Bexar County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00855-CV Alexander MOLINA, Appellant v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al. Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 371,699 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 1, 2012 DISMISSED When appellant Alexander Molina filed this appeal, he was required to pay a $175.00 filing fee. See TEX. GOV=T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b)(1), 51.941(a) (West 2005); id. §§ 51.208, 51.0051 (West Supp. 2011); TEXAS SUPREME COURT ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 07-9138, Aug. 28, 2007) § B.1.(a). Appellant did not pay the required filing fee when he filed his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the 04-11-00855-CV clerk of this court notified appellant by letter dated December 2, 2011, that his notice of appeal was conditionally filed and the filing fee was due no later than December 12, 2011. On December 30, 2011, when the fee remained unpaid, this court ordered that appellant must, not later than January 9, 2012, either (1) pay the applicable filing fee, or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 ( A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay B at the time an item is presented for filing B whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just. ). The court advised appellant that if he failed to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. The filing fee has not been paid, and appellant has not provided a satisfactory response to our December 30, 2011 order. We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order appellant to bear all costs of this appeal. PER CURIAM -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.
