Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-23-2022
Case Style:
Rand G. Desrosiers v. William Davis and Lanell Davis
Case Number: 03-21-00343-CV
Judge: Edward Smith
Court:
Court of Appeals Third Appellate District of Texas at Austin
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Comal County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
Counselor:
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Defendant's Attorney: Ms. Barbara Gayl Ancira
Description:
Austin, Texas – Real Estate lawyer represented Appellant with appealing from a forcible-detainer action
This is an appeal from a forcible-detainer action. Pursuant to Section 24.007 of
the Property Code and Marshall v. Housing Authority, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006), a court of
appeals only maintains jurisdiction over a forcible-detainer challenge if the tenant timely files
a supersedeas bond (or timely files an affidavit of inability to pay that bond) and remains
in actual possession of the property. Based on its initial review of the record, the Court was
unable to determine whether it can exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, on
September 2, 2021, the Court asked Appellant to file a response explaining how this Court may
exercise jurisdiction over the cause. On September 14, 2021, the Court received but did not file
a motion for extension of time to file a response because the attorney who signed the motion had
not yet made an appearance on appellant’s behalf. On October 29, 2021, the Court informed
appellant by letter that if the Court did not receive either the response or counsel’s notice of
appearance by November 8, 2021, we would dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c)
(authorizing dismissal “because the appellant has failed to comply with . . . a notice from the
clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time”). Counsel filed notice of
appearance on November 8, 2021, and the Court granted the motion for extension of time in part,
making the response due December 15, 2021. Appellant has not filed the response, a motion for
extension of time, or responded to a telephone inquiry from the Clerk.
Outcome: We dismiss the appeal because of appellant’s failure to respond to our jurisdictional inquiry
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: