St. Croix Pools, LLC, St. Croix Custom Pools, LLC, and Mark Steven Mills v. Beth Desilets and Russell Desilets

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00435-CV
__________________

ST. CROIX POOLS, LLC, ST. CROIX CUSTOM POOLS, LLC, AND
MARK STEVEN MILLS, Appellants

V.

BETH DESILETS AND RUSSELL DESILETS, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22-04-04302-CV
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 12, 2024, St. Croix Pools, LLC, St. Croix Custom Pools, LLC,

and Mark Steven Mills, filed a notice of appeal from a judgment signed on

November 15, 2024, from the 284th District Court. Upon receiving the notice of

appeal from Appellants, the Clerk of the Court issued a Bill of Costs for the filing

fee for the appeal. By letter dated January 17, 2025, we notified the parties that

Appellants had not paid the filing fee as directed in our letter and Bill of Costs

1
previously forwarded to Appellants. A Certified Bill of Costs for the filing fee was

enclosed and provided to Appellants. We warned Appellants in our letter dated

January 14, 2025, that unless the filing fee was paid, the appeal would be dismissed

without further notice on any date after Thursday, February 13, 2025. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(c). As of this date, Appellants have failed to pay the filing fee as

directed by this Court.

On January 14, 2025, the District Clerk notified the Court that Appellants had

failed to pay or to make the arrangements necessary for the District Clerk to prepare

the clerk’s record. We notified the parties that Appellants had not established

indigent status, and that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to Appellants’

failure to pay or to arrange to pay the fee required to prepare the clerk’s record. We

warned Appellants that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless

Appellants established that they had made the arrangements required to pay the fee

or that they needed more time to do so. See id. 37.3(b). After the Clerk of this Court

sent the parties a letter warning of the consequences of a failure to take the action

necessary to file the clerk’s record, the Court did not receive a response.

Appellants have not paid the filing fee for the appeal, nor have they explained

why they have not paid the fee for the clerk’s record; therefore, we dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution. Id. 5, 42.3, 43.2(f).

2
APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 26, 2025
Opinion Delivered February 27, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

3