Janice Darlene Seaton v. Alan Ray Bratton--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

Annotate this Case
Seaton v. Bratton /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-92-136-CV

 

JANICE DARLENE SEATON,

Appellant

v.

 

ALAN RAY BRATTON,

Appellee

 

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 33,038-85

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to retain this case on the trial court's docket, signed on December 19, 1991. A motion to reinstate the case was timely filed, as well as an appeal bond. The time for filing the record expired on April 17, 1992, 120 days from the signing of the appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 54(a). However, the record, consisting of the transcript and statement of facts, was not received until May 20, 1992, at which time they were filed and counsel were notified that the record was not received within 120 days of the order denying the motion to retain.

On May 28, Appellant filed a motion to extend time for filing the record. Appellee then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to timely file the record and, in response to this motion, Appellant states that a notice of appeal form from the district clerk incorrectly stated that the appeal was due on May 22, 1992.

Neither City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 606 (February 26, 1992), nor Crown Life Ins. v. Estate of Gonzalez, 820 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. 1991), are applicable here. Because Appellant failed to file a motion for extension of time to file the record within fifteen days following the date the record was due, Appellant's motion to extend time for filing the record or to supplement the record on appeal is denied. See id. at 54(c). Appellee's motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. Id. at 60(a).

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 22, 1992

Do not publish

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.