Court Opinion

ID: 2926842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:40:04.241984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:30.497194
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-96-00637-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

______________________________________________________________
 
SANTIAGO "JIMMY" ALANIZ,	Appellant,

v.

EDUARDO J. GARCIA AND FRANK S. LOPEZ,	Appellees.
_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

	This appeal was abated by this Court on December 18, 1997, due to the bankruptcy
of one of the parties to this appeal.   See 11 U.S.C. § 362; see generally Tex. R. App. P.
8.  Since the abatement there has been no activity in this appeal.  On April 16, 2009, the
Court ordered the parties to file an advisory regarding the status of the appeal and, if
applicable, a motion to reinstate the appeal or a motion to dismiss the appeal.  The order 
notified the parties that failure to respond to the order would result in reinstatement and
dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.  
	Appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal stating that it "is believed that all
proceedings in said bankruptcy case have been concluded."  Appellee filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal stating that all relevant documents and records have been destroyed
and cannot, at this late date, be reconstructed.  Appellee obtained a record indicating
Appellant was discharged in bankruptcy on February 9, 1998.
	This case was abated on December 18, 1997.  The order abating appeal states the
appeal may be reinstated on motion by any party showing that the stay has been lifted, and
specifying what further action, if any, is required from the Court.  Appellant took no  action
in this case for over eleven years after the case was abated and appellant was discharged
in bankruptcy.
 The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's motion to
reinstate appeal is of the opinion that the motion to reinstate should be DENIED and
appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.  We hereby dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 
									PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 18th day of June, 2009.