In the Matter of the Marriage of Blake Andrew Pratz and Julie Pratz Appeal from 309th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-20-00187-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF THE § APPEAL FROM THE 309TH MARRIAGE OF BLAKE ANDREW § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PRATZ AND JULIE PRATZ § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Appellant, Blake Andrew Pratz, perfected his appeal on July 23, 2020. Appellant, Sara Razavi Zand, likewise perfected her appeal on July 23. 2 Cross-Appellant Julie Pratz filed a corrected notice of appeal on August 27. On August 25, this Court notified all three parties that the reporter’s record was due and that the court reporter notified this Court that the reason for the delay in filing the record is due to non-payment of the required preparation fee. The notice further stated that the appeal would be submitted on the clerk’s record alone unless proof of full payment to the reporter was received by this Court no later than September 4. None of the three parties responded to this Court’s notice and, on September 24, the reporter notified this Court that payment arrangements have still not been made. On August 27, the trial court clerk notified this Court that no payment arrangements had been made for the clerk’s record. On August 28, we notified all three parties that the clerk’s record was due and the clerk notified this Court that the reason for the delay in filing the record is due to non-payment of the required preparation fee. We further notified the parties that the 1 Pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas on July 30, 2020, this appeal has been transferred to this Court from the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. Zand, Julie Pratz’s divorce attorney, appealed from an order on motion for sanctions, in which the trial court sanctioned Zand for signing and issuing subpoenas the trial court deemed to be groundless and brought in bad faith and for purposes of harassment. 2 appeal would be presented to the Court for dismissal unless proof of full payment to the clerk was provided no later than September 8. This deadline has now passed and none of the three parties have established indigence, paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 35.3, 37.3. Nor have any of the three parties otherwise responded to any of this Court’s notices. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Opinion delivered October 14, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OCTOBER 14, 2020 NO. 12-20-00187-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BLAKE ANDREW PRATZ AND JULIE PRATZ Appeal from the 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2018-76641) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
