Constance Benavides A/K/A Constance Chamberlain v. Borain Capital Fund-III, LLC
Docket 13-26-00038-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 13-26-00038-CV
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County dismissed for procedural noncompliance
Summary
The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Constance Benavides’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County because she failed to meet appellate procedural requirements. The clerk’s record was overdue, and Benavides did not file the required docketing statement or inform the court that she paid or arranged to pay the clerk’s fee or was entitled to proceed without payment. After notice and a court order giving her ten days to comply, she did not respond, so the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and a court order.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellant complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure requirements for filing a docketing statement and arranging for payment of the clerk's record fee
- Whether dismissal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and an order was appropriate after the appellant failed to respond to notice and an order
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on the appellate rules that require timely filing of a docketing statement and either payment or arrangements for the clerk’s record fee, or a showing of entitlement to proceed without payment. The clerk notified the trial court and the appellant of the overdue record and the missing docketing statement, and the court gave the appellant ten days to cure these deficiencies. Because the appellant did not file the docketing statement or show payment or exemption, the court concluded dismissal was proper for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the rules and a court order.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 32.1, 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(a)(1), 42.3(b), 42.3(c)
Parties
- Appellant
- Constance Benavides a/k/a Constance Chamberlain
- Appellee
- Borain Capital Fund-III, LLC
- Judge
- Justice Ysmael D. Fonseca
- Judge
- Justice Silva
- Judge
- Justice Cron
Key Dates
- Clerk notified of late clerk's record and appellant advised of missing docketing statement
- 2026-02-10
- Court order giving appellant ten days to respond
- 2026-03-13
- Trial court clerk advised appellant had not paid fee or made arrangements
- 2026-03-23
- Decision filed and appeal dismissed
- 2026-04-09
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult an attorney promptly
Contact appellate counsel immediately to evaluate options for seeking reinstatement, requesting leave to file out of time, or other relief and to confirm any remaining deadlines.
- 2
Consider motion for reinstatement or rehearing
Prepare and file a motion asking the appellate court to reinstate the appeal or grant rehearing, explaining the reasons for the missed filings and providing evidence of payment or arrangements if available.
- 3
If reinstatement denied, evaluate further remedies
If the court denies reinstatement, discuss whether a new appeal, mandamus, or other post-judgment remedies are available given the case posture and applicable time limits.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to file a docketing statement and did not pay or arrange payment for the clerk’s record or show she was entitled to proceed without payment.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The appellant, Constance Benavides (also known as Constance Chamberlain), is directly affected because her appeal was dismissed; the appellee is Borain Capital Fund-III, LLC.
- What happens next?
- The dismissal ends this appeal unless the appellant seeks and obtains relief such as reinstatement from the appellate court or files a new appeal within applicable time limits, if any relief is available.
- Why was the appeal dismissed rather than decided on the merits?
- The court dismissed the appeal for procedural noncompliance after giving notice and an opportunity to cure; the court did not reach the underlying merits because the required appellate filings and fee arrangements were not provided.
- Can this dismissal be challenged?
- Potentially, the appellant may request reinstatement or file a motion for rehearing or other relief with the appellate court, but relief depends on showing good cause for the failures and complying with the rules.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
NUMBER 13-26-00038-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
CONSTANCE BENAVIDES A/K/A
CONSTANCE CHAMBERLAIN, Appellant,
v.
BORAIN CAPITAL FUND-III, LLC, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3
OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On February 10, 2026, the Clerk
of the Court notified the trial court clerk that the clerk’s record was late. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 37.3(a)(1). Also on February 10, 2026, the Clerk advised appellant by letter that she
failed to complete and return the docketing statement. See id. R. 32.1. On March 13,
2026, we ordered appellant to advise this Court within ten days whether she has paid the
clerk’s fee for preparation of the clerk’s record, has made satisfactory arrangements with
the clerk to pay the fee, or is entitled to appeal without paying the fee; otherwise, the
appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 35.3(a)(2), 42.3(b). We further
advised appellant that, if the docketing statement is not filed within ten days, the appeal
will be dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a requirement of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 32.1, 42.3(b), (c).
More than ten days have elapsed since the entry of the March 13, 2026 order, and
appellant: (1) has not filed the docketing statement; and (2) has not advised this Court
whether she has paid the fee for preparation of the clerk’s record, has made satisfactory
arrangements to pay the fee, or is entitled to appeal without paying the fee.1 Accordingly,
we hereby dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, for failure to comply with a
requirement of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for failure to comply with a
court order. See id. R. 32.1, 42.3(b), (c).
YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
9th day of April, 2026.
1 On March 23, 2026, the trial court clerk advised this Court that appellant has not paid the fee or
made arrangements to pay the fee.
2