Flower of Life Healing Ministries v. Travis Central Appraisal District Appeal from 126th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00293-CV FLOWER OF LIFE HEALING MINISTRIES, APPELLANT V. TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 126th District Court Travis County, Texas1 Trial Court No. D-1-GN-19-006173, Honorable Maya Guerra Gamble, Presiding April 19, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Flower of Life Healing Ministries, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s brief was originally due February 4, 2021, but was not filed. On February 23, 2021, Dessie Maria Andrews, a non-attorney, filed a “Motion for Extension 1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). of Time to file Appellant’s Brief” and “Appellant’s Brief” purportedly on the behalf of appellant. Because only a licensed attorney can represent a corporation in litigation, we struck the motion and brief. See Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (providing that a nonlawyer may only perform ministerial tasks for a corporation on appeal). By letter of February 24, 2021, we granted, sua sponte, appellant an extension to March 26 to file a brief and admonished that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if an appellate brief was not filed by an attorney by this deadline. See WM3 Ventures, Inc. v. Fox TV Station LLC, No. 14-18-00454-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5217, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 12, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of prosecution after corporate appellant failed to obtain appellate counsel). To date, appellant has not filed a brief or had any further communication with this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 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.