Sergio San Miguel v. Bellco Credit Union Serviced by Upgrade Inc.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Date FiledAugust 6, 2026
Docket13-26-00385-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NUMBER 13-26-00385-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
SERGIO SAN MIGUEL, Appellant,
v.
BELLCO CREDIT UNION
SERVICED BY UPGRADE INC., Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 23RD DISTRICT COURT
OF MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On May 13, 2026, appellant filed
a notice of restricted appeal in trial court cause number 25-M-0027. On May 18, 2026,
the Clerk of the Court instructed the appellant to remit a $205.00 filing fee within ten days
from the date of the notice. Appellant was also notified that the notice of appeal does not
comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) and 25.1, and appellant was
provided thirty days to cure the defect. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 25.1, 37.1.
On June 9, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent
in paying the $205.00 filing fee and that if the filing fee was not paid within 10 days, the
appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these
rules from paying costs must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever
fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce
this rule by any order that is just.”); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 51.207 (delineating the required
fees and costs in an appellate court).
On June 15, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the District
Clerk, Janice Hawthorne, had notified the Court that appellant had failed to make
arrangements for payment of the clerk’s record. Appellant was further notified that unless
he made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and proof of payment was provided
to the Court within ten days, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.
See TEX. R. APP. 37.3(b).
Appellant has failed to cure the defective notice of appeal, failed to pay the filing
fee, and has otherwise not responded to the notices from the Clerk of the Court requiring
a response or other action within the time specified. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).
L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
6th day of August, 2026.
2