Marvin (A.J.) Jack and wife, Kathy Bailey v. Maxwell Lumber Company, James R. Tarrant, Sr., Individually and d/b/a Tarrant Ranch--Appeal from 2nd District Court of Cherokee County

MARY'S OPINION HEADING NO. 12-01-00087-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

MARVIN (A.J.) JACK AND WIFE

KATHY BAILEY,

 
APPEAL FROM THE SECOND

APPELLANTS

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

MAXWELL LUMBER COMPANY,

JAMES R. TARRANT, SR.,

 
CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

TARRANT RANCH

APPELLEES

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellants perfected their appeal on March 23, 2001. Thereafter, the record was filed on August 14, 2001, making Appellant's brief due on or before September 13, 2001. By way of a request for extension, this deadline was extended to October 29, 2001. When Appellants failed to file their brief within the required time, this Court notified them on November 6, 2001, that the brief was past due, and it warned that if no response reasonably explaining the delay was received by November 16, 2001, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) and 38.8(a)(1).

On November 19, 2001, Appellants filed a Motion to Suspend the Rules Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 2, but did not file a brief. In this motion, Appellants contend, primarily, that they are unable to file a brief because their attorney has withdrawn from the case and they have been unable to find an attorney to represent them. While Appellants rely on their inability to obtain legal representation as an explanation for their failure to file a brief, they have not reasonably explained their failure to file a brief pro se.

With regard to the preparation of a pro se brief, Appellant, Kathy Bailey ("Bailey"), asserts that she has been unable to prepare a brief due to other demands on her time and energy, including the care of her husband, Appellant Marvin (A.J.) Jack, who is disabled. She also asserts that her husband has recently left their home and that his departure has contributed to her inability to prepare a brief. Although we sympathize with Bailey's difficulties in preparing a brief, her explanation does not reasonably explain her failure to file a brief now that two and one-half months have passed since the brief was originally due. We conclude that Appellants' motion to suspend the rules is an insufficient explanation of their failure to file a brief.

As of November 28, 2001, Appellant has failed to tender a brief. Because Appellants have failed to file a brief within the time proscribed and because they have failed to reasonably explain their failure to do so, Appellants' Motion to Suspend the Rules Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 2 is overruled and their appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3.(b).

 

Opinion delivered November 30, 2001.

Panel consisted of Davis, C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)