Flores v. Hamayun — Appeal dismissed for failure to pay required appeal fees

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Maria Flores appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, First District, from a judgment entered by the 280th District Court in Harris County. Under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Texas Government Code, appellants in civil cases must either pay all required court of appeals fees or establish indigence to avoid dismissal.

The appellate court notified Flores that her appeal would be subject to dismissal unless she either paid the required fees or provided a written explanation for why she should not be required to do so. Flores neither established indigence nor paid the required fees.

Despite the court’s notice and opportunity to cure the deficiency, Flores never responded as requested by the court.

The Court’s Holding

The court dismissed the appeal due to Flores’s nonpayment of all required fees. Because Flores neither established indigence nor responded to the court’s order requiring payment or explanation, the court had no basis to waive the fee requirement.

The panel held that compliance with fee-payment procedures is mandatory unless the appellant satisfies the statutory requirements for indigence. Silence in response to a court order directing the appellant to cure a fee deficiency constitutes grounds for dismissal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Key Takeaways

• Appellants must pay all required court of appeals fees or formally establish indigence before appeal deadlines expire.
• Courts will grant appellants an opportunity to cure fee deficiencies, but failure to respond results in dismissal.
• Procedural compliance is not discretionary—lack of response to court orders triggers automatic dismissal.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces that appellate courts enforce fee-payment rules strictly. Appellants who lack resources must affirmatively establish indigence; failure to respond to court notices regarding fees forfeits the right to appeal entirely.

For practitioners, the decision underscores the critical importance of monitoring court correspondence and meeting all procedural deadlines, particularly fee requirements that can result in outright dismissal.