Joyce Botelho and Anthony Botelho v. Cindy Larkin and Builder's Carpet & Design Center, Inc.--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-08-00396-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JOYCE BOTELHO AND ANTHONY BOTELHO, APPELLANTS § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF CINDY LARKIN AND BUILDER S CARPET & DESIGN CENTER, INC., APPELLEES § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellants docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., September 26, 2008. See TEX . R. APP. P. 32.1. On September 30, 2008, this court notified Appellants that they should file a docketing statement immediately if they had not already done so. On the same date, by separate letter, this court notified Appellants that the filing fee was due on or before October 10, 2008. Because Appellants did not file the docketing statement as requested in our letter, this court issued a second notice on October 15, 2008 advising Appellants that the docketing statement was past due. The notice also advised Appellants that the filing fee in the appeal was due to have been paid on or before October 10, 2008, but had not been received. See TEX . R. APP. P. 5. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement and filing fee were filed on or before October 27, 2008, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The date for filing the docketing statement and the filing fee has passed, and Appellants have not complied with the court s request. Because Appellants have failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX . R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Opinion delivered October 31, 2008. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (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.
