Jimmy C. Ballard and Alexis Boultinghouse-Ballard v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, As Trustee for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2004-RM2 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-16-00405-CV Jimmy C. BALLARD and Alexis Boultinghouse-Ballard, Appellants v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR ACE SECURITIES CORP. HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2004-RM2 ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CV07393 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 10, 2016 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION When appellants filed this appeal, they were required to pay a filing fee of $205.00. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b)(1), 51.941(a); see also id. §§ 51.208, 51.0051; TEXAS SUPREME COURT ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN CIVIL CASES IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 14-9158, Aug. 28, 2015). Appellants did not pay the required filing fee when they filed the notice of appeal. The clerk of the court notified appellants of this deficiency in a letter 04-16-00405-CV dated June 23, 2016, and advised appellants the filing fee was due no later than July 7, 2016. On July 19, 2016, when the fee remained unpaid, we ordered appellants, not later than July 29, 2016, to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee, or (2) provide written proof to this court that they are indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). The court advised appellants that if they 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 appellants have not otherwise responded to our July 19, 2106 order. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We further order that appellee recover its costs of this appeal, if any, from appellants. 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.
