Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal by Dan J. Simpson and Danielle T. Simpson against Lindale State Bank is dismissed due to non-compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The judgment was signed on December 16, 2010, and the appellants filed a notice of appeal that lacked essential information, specifically a certificate of service as required by Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). On January 14, 2011, the appellants were informed of the defect and given a deadline of February 14, 2011, to file an amended notice of appeal. They failed to meet this deadline, and therefore, the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was delivered on February 16, 2011, by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Worthen and Justices Griffith and Hoyle.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Compliance with Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal by the appellants was dismissed due to their failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically regarding the requirements for filing a notice of appeal.
Reasoning: The appeal by Dan J. Simpson and Danielle T. Simpson against Lindale State Bank is dismissed due to non-compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Opportunity to Cure Defective Notice of Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants were given the opportunity to amend their notice of appeal to correct the defect but failed to do so within the provided deadline.
Reasoning: On January 14, 2011, the appellants were informed of the defect and given a deadline of February 14, 2011, to file an amended notice of appeal. They failed to meet this deadline, and therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.
Requirements for Notice of Appeal under Texas Rules of Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants' notice of appeal was deemed defective as it lacked the necessary certificate of service, which is a requirement under the rules.
Reasoning: The judgment was signed on December 16, 2010, and the appellants filed a notice of appeal that lacked essential information, specifically a certificate of service as required by Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e).