Carolyn R. Gibson v. Gambrell Leasing, LLC Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-16-00059-CV ____________________ CAROLYN R. GIBSON, Appellant V. GAMBRELL LEASING, LLC, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-29211 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The notice of appeal was filed with the trial court on February 24, 2016. To date, despite written notices from this Court and an opportunity to cure, the appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 20.1. In addition, no clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the Court that the appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. On April 20, 2016, we notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution 1 unless arrangements were made for filing the record or the appellant explained why additional time was needed to file the record. Appellant did not respond to the Court’s notices. Appellant did not file an affidavit of indigence on appeal and has not shown that she is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to pay the filing fee for the appeal, and there being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the clerk’s record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b); Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on June 1, 2016 Opinion Delivered June 2, 2016 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 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.
