Guy Grantham v. Racefab, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-15-00148-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 30, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Grantham’s appeal was dismissed on July 15, 2015, due to his failure to arrange for the payment and filing of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. He subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time to submit a rehearing motion, citing the need for the Cherokee County Sheriff to execute a writ of execution. Grantham argued that if the Appellees lacked sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment, he would dismiss the appeal, thus saving time and resources for all parties. Despite requesting the writ on July 6, 2015, the Sheriff had not executed it as of the date of the motion. The Appellees did not oppose Grantham's request for an extension, which was his first. However, the Court denied this extension on July 30, 2015.

Grantham seeks reinstatement of his case, referencing the Texas Supreme Court’s commitment to not dismiss appeals for harmless procedural defects and advocating for a liberal construction of appellate rules. He argues that he should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the procedural defect of not timely filing the record, as this defect does not affect the merits of his case. The document cites several precedents supporting the notion that appellate courts should focus on substantive issues rather than procedural technicalities and that harmless procedural deficiencies can be corrected on rehearing.

In the case of Grantham, the appellant seeks reinstatement of his appeal after a dismissal due to procedural failures, including not paying the required filing fees and not filing the clerk's record. The document cites several precedents where Texas courts of appeals have reinstated appeals despite similar procedural defects, emphasizing that cases should be decided based on their merits rather than on procedural grounds. Grantham requests the court to grant rehearing, allowing him a reasonable period to rectify the filing issues. The document is submitted by Stephen E. McCleery of The McCleery Law Firm, who certifies that the document was served electronically to the opposing counsel. The appendix includes references to previous cases where appeals were reinstated after dismissal for failure to pay fees or file records, further supporting Grantham's request.

In the case of Aubrey R. Jefferson v. Unity National Bank (NO. 14-14-00197-CV), the Fourteenth Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal on May 8, 2014, due to the appellant's failure to arrange payment for the clerk's record. On May 14, 2014, Jefferson filed a motion to reinstate the appeal, claiming he had made the necessary payment arrangements. The court granted this motion, withdrew the previous opinion, vacated the judgment, and reinstated the appeal. However, the clerk’s record indicated that Jefferson's motion for reconsideration in the trial court was untimely, leading the court to consider dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless a response demonstrating valid grounds for continuation is filed by June 10, 2014.

In the case of Ward Arnold v. Federal National Mortgage Association (NO. 14-13-00418-CV), the court dismissed the appeal on July 18, 2013, for Arnold's failure to pay the appellate filing fee and respond to court notices. After Arnold paid the fee on July 19, 2013, he filed a motion for rehearing to reinstate the appeal, which was opposed by the appellee. The court granted the motion, withdrew its prior opinion, vacated the judgment, and reinstated the appeal, noting that the reporter's record was not filed due to non-payment by Arnold. The court mandated that unless payment for the record is made by September 3, 2013, Arnold would need to file a brief without the record.