wanda-seals-v-masc-austin-properties-inc-shirley-austin-individually ( 2003 )

Dismissed and Opinion filed April 3, 2003

Dismissed and Opinion filed April 3, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00223-CV

____________

WANDA SEALS, Appellant

V.

MASC AUSTIN PROPERTIES, INC., SHIRLEY AUSTIN, Individually, SOUTHWEST GARDENS CONDOMINIUM COUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS, INC., and CECIL OSAKWE, Individually, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-05908

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

According to information provided to this Court, this is an attempted appeal from orders granting interlocutory summary judgments, which were made final by an order of non-suit of the last remaining issue signed September 30, 2002.  Appellant filed a motion for new trial on October 17, 2002. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due December 30, 2002.  See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a) and 26.1(a)(1).  Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until February 19, 2003, and the appeal was assigned to this Court at that time.  Appellant=s amended notice of appeal was filed February 27, 2003. 

The clerk=s record was due January 17, 2003, but it has not been filed.  On March 12, 2003, the district clerk=s office informed this Court that appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the record.  On March 13, 2003, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On March 12, 2003, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, asserting that appellant=s notice of appeal was untimely.  On March 24, 2003, appellant filed a docketing statement in which she stated the clerk=s record was requested that day.  Appellant did not provide proof of payment for the record or otherwise respond to this Court=s notice of intent to dismiss the appeal.  Appellant also did not respond to appellees= motion to dismiss the appeal.  To date, the clerk=s record has not been filed.  Because we are without a record containing the order or orders being appealed, we are unable to determine whether appellant=s notice of appeal is untimely.  Accordingly, we deny appellees= motion. Because appellant has not provided this Court with a clerk=s record more than two months after it was due, however, we order the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed April 3, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Fowler and Edelman.