Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MARILYN LEE INGRAM, APPELLANT v. DENNIS M. PERROTTA AND SHARI PERROTTA, APPELLEES
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before this court is Appellant Marilyn Lee Ingram's third motion for extension of time to file her brief. Having previously extended Ingram's briefing deadline for over 120 days, we deny her motion and dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution.
Ingram filed this appeal from a take-nothing judgment in favor of Appellees, Dennis M. Perrotta and Shari Perrotta. On April 19, 2016, we allowed Ingram's counsel to withdraw from representation. Ingram continued her appeal pro se. After the clerk's record and reporter's record were filed, Ingram's brief was due on May 20, 2016. However, Ingram did not file a brief by this deadline. By letter dated May 31, 2016, we notified Ingram that her brief was late and granted, sua sponte, an extension of time to file her brief until June 10, 2016. On June 24, 2016, after the deadline had passed, Ingram filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief explaining that additional time was needed to obtain appellate counsel. We granted an extension to August 31, 2016, with the admonition that failure to file a brief by this date could subject the appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).
On August 31, 2016, Ingram again moved for an extension of time to file her brief as she was still unable to obtain appellate counsel. We granted an extension to September 30, 2016, and by letter again notified Ingram that failure to file a brief by the deadline could subject the appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution.
Ingram now moves for an extension until October 28, 2016, to file her brief because she is unable to obtain representation. Having given Ingram an ample amount of time to file her brief, we deny the motion.1
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the clerk of this court requiring action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
FOOTNOTES
1. Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we waive the $10.00 filing fee for Ingram's third motion for extension of time to file brief.
Per Curiam
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 07-16-00017-CV
Decided: October 04, 2016
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)