Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Appellants Stephanie L. Charles and Tony Charles filed a notice of appeal on February 26, 2026, from the 165th District Court of Harris County in a case against Dr. Juliet Breeze and Next Level Urgent Care LLC. However, appellants failed to comply with mandatory appellate procedures and fees required to proceed with their appeal.
The Clerk of the Court notified appellants that they must pay the appellate filing fee by April 20, 2026, or risk dismissal of their appeal. Additionally, appellants were required to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and were instructed to provide written evidence of payment or payment arrangements by May 7, 2026. Appellants failed to respond to either notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for two independent grounds: nonpayment of all required appellate fees and want of prosecution. The appellants’ failure to pay the appellate filing fee, failure to pay or arrange payment for the clerk’s record, and failure to respond to the Court’s notices constituted sufficient basis for dismissal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure §37.3(b) and §42.3(b)–(c).
The Court also dismissed all pending motions as moot, given the dismissal of the underlying appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must comply with mandatory procedural requirements and payment obligations to pursue an appeal, or face dismissal regardless of the merits of their underlying case.
- Failure to respond to court notices regarding fee payment constitutes want of prosecution, an independent basis for dismissal.
- Appellate courts lack discretion to overlook nonpayment of required fees; strict compliance with appellate rules is mandatory.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores that appellate procedure rules are not mere technicalities—they are mandatory and enforced strictly. Litigants who appeal must pay required fees and comply with all procedural deadlines, or their appeals will be dismissed before the court considers the merits. Failure to respond to clerk’s notices is particularly costly, as it prevents the court from even entertaining substantive arguments.
For attorneys representing appellants, this case serves as a reminder that appellate practice requires meticulous attention to procedural calendars, fee structures, and clerk notifications. A single missed deadline or unresponsive client can result in complete loss of appellate review, regardless of how strong the underlying case may be.