Stephen Wulff v. Jeff Fratangelo Appeal from 276th District Court of Marion County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00070-CV STEPHEN WULFF, Appellant V. JEFF FRATANGELO, Appellee On Appeal from the 276th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. 0900107 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess MEMORANDUM OPINION Stephen Wulff, appellant, filed a notice of appeal in this matter on August 22, 2014. Both the clerk’s and reporter’s records were due to be filed with this Court on or before November 24, 2014. Neither record has been filed, and there is no indication that Wulff has paid for or made arrangements for payment of the fees associated with their preparation. Unless otherwise excused, a non-indigent appellant must either pay for or make arrangements for the payment of the fees related to preparation of the appellate record to ensure that the record is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3); see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c); 37.3(b), (c). By letter dated December 22, 2014, and pursuant to Rules 37.3(b) and (c) and 42.3(b) and (c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, our clerk’s office provided Wulff with notice of and an opportunity to cure these defects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c), 42.3(b), (c). The clerk’s letter further warned Wulff that if he did not submit an adequate response to our defect letter within ten days of the date of the letter, his appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. We have received no communication from Wulff responsive to the December 22 correspondence from our clerk’s office, and we have not received the appellate record. 2 Pursuant to Rules 37.3(b) and (c) and 42.3(b) and (c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Ralph K. Burgess Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: January 15, 2015 January 16, 2015 3

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.