Carolyn Williams v. Ladera ( 2021 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00127-CV
___________________________
CAROLYN WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
LADERA, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV-2020-00600-JP
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Carolyn Williams appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding her
guilty of forcible detainer and from the resulting writ of possession. Because Williams
has failed to file a substantially compliant brief, to correct the brief even though given
the opportunity to do so, and to reasonably explain the failure, we dismiss her appeal
for want of prosecution.
After Williams failed to appear for her requested jury trial on appellee Ladera’s
eviction petition, the justice court granted Ladera a judgment for eviction and ordered
Williams to surrender possession of the premises. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.8(a).
Williams appealed the justice court’s judgment to a county court in a trial de novo. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.10. In the county court, Williams again did not appear for trial,
and that court found Williams guilty of forcible detainer and issued a writ of
possession in favor of Ladera. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 24.002, 24.0061(a); Tex.
R. Civ. P. 510.13. Williams filed a motion to reconsider, but the trial court denied the
motion after she failed to appear at the telephonic hearing.
In her appeal to this court, Williams did not request the court reporter to
prepare the reporter’s record nor did she designate the exhibits or portions to be
included. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b), 35.3(b)(2). We notified Williams of the failure
and gave her ten days to correct the deficiency. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(c)(1).
Williams did nothing; therefore, we notified her that we would consider and decide
those issues not requiring a reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). We
2
additionally informed Williams that her appellant’s brief was due no later than
September 23, 2020. Williams did not file a brief, and we notified her that we could
dismiss her appeal unless she filed a brief and reasonably explained its untimeliness.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). In response, Williams filed two extension motions,
which were granted, resulting in a due date of December 14.
On December 14, Williams filed a motion to supplement the record with the
parties’ factual stipulations.1 That same day, Williams also filed her brief. Based on
several violations of the briefing rules, we requested an amended brief no later than
December 28 and warned that her failure to do so could result in striking the brief
and dismissing her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1, 38.8(a), 38.9(a). Williams has not
responded to our request for an amended brief.
Williams’s tendered brief is in flagrant violation of the briefing rules. See Tex.
R. App. P. 38.9(a). Although we warned her that we could strike her brief and dismiss
her appeal if she failed to comply, Williams has not attempted to do so or to
reasonably explain her failure. Accordingly, we strike Williams’s brief and dismiss the
appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f),
44.3; Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1
Ladera responded to this motion and asserted that it had never agreed to any
stipulations and that it was Williams’s responsibility to designate the necessary
portions of the reporter’s record. Williams replied and asserted that the parties’ best
interest and judicial economy mandate that Ladera “cooperate” in preparing a
stipulated record.
3
2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). We deny Williams’s motion to supplement
the record as moot.
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: January 21, 2021
4