Edward L. Kennedy v. Southbrook Development Corporation, Wesley C. Anderson, Lacey M. Anderson, Callum R. Cook, Kimberly A. Cook, and Keenon Rayner Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-17-00394-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG EDWARD L. KENNEDY, Appellant, v. SOUTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WESLEY C. ANDERSON, LACEY M. ANDERSON, CALLUM R. COOK, KIMBERLY A. COOK AND KEENON RAYNER, Appellees. On appeal from the 410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina On June 15, 2017, appellant, Edward L. Kennedy, perfected an appeal from a judgment rendered against him in favor of appellees, Southbrook Development Corporation, Wesley C. Anderson, Lacey M. Anderson, Callum R. Cook, Kimberly A. Cook, and Keenon Rayner. 1 On August 6, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk’s record in the above cause was originally due on July 11, 2019, and that the deputy district clerk, Leah Timmons, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). JAIME TIJERINA, Justice Delivered and filed the 27th day of August, 2019. This case is before this Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 1 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.
