In the Matter of the Marriage of Anthony Scott Brown and Glenda Darlene Brown aka Glenda Darlene Romines--Appeal from 320th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0234-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
OCTOBER 17, 2006
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
ANTHONY SCOTT BROWN AND GLENDA DARLENE BROWN,
A/K/A GLENDA DARLENE ROMINES
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 69476-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Anthony Scott Brown, appeals an order of dismissal of his petition for
divorce. We previously abated and remanded the matter to the trial court for findings of
fact necessary to our jurisdictional determination. We reverse and remand to the trial
court for further proceedings.1
1
Because of the disposition of this matter and pursuant to Rule 2 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are dispensing of the requirement of the 21 days notice
to the parties.
Background
Brown filed a petition for divorce in 2004. Because of his incarceration with the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Brown corresponded with the trial court by mail and
never made a personal appearance. On March 16, 2006, the trial court signed an order
of dismissal for lack of prosecution. Upon receiving the order of dismissal, Brown sent the
trial court a motion requesting reinstatement of the divorce proceedings. The trial court
took no action on his motion to reinstate which was denied by operation of law. See TEX .
R. CIV. P. 329b(c). Brown then filed a notice of appeal with the trial court clerk on June 7,
2006. On July 27, we abated the matter to the trial court for findings of fact to assist this
court in determining whether Brown’s motion to reinstate extended appellant’s time to file
notice of appeal. As a result of the trial court’s additional investigation of the facts, the trial
court concludes that Brown’s motion to reinstate was indeed timely and that the trial court’s
order of dismissal was premised on the mistaken belief that Brown’s lack of prosecution
of the petition for divorce was intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Further,
the trial court concedes in its findings of fact that Brown is entitled to a hearing on his
motion to reinstate. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we will not require the filing of
briefs, see TEX . R. APP. P. 2, and will reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand
to the trial court for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
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.
