Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Neumann v. Qum Qasr Series LLC — dismissed the appeal at the appellant’s request and ordered the mandate issued immediately

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Brandi Neumann v. Qum Qasr Series LLC, Trustee of the 25FEB – Ridge Crown 12207 Land Trust
Court
Texas Fourth Court of Appeals
Judge
Adrian A. Spears II (elected 2024); H. Todd McCray (elected 2024)
Date Decided
August 5, 2026
Docket No.
04-26-00124-CV
Topics
Voluntary Dismissal; Appellate Procedure; Mandate
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Brandi Neumann appealed from a case in Bexar County Court at Law No. 10 involving Qum Qasr Series LLC, as trustee of the 25FEB – Ridge Crown 12207 Land Trust. Her appellate brief was due June 8, 2026, but she did not file it.

After the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, the Fourth Court of Appeals ordered Neumann to file her brief by June 26, along with a written explanation for the delay and why the appellee was not significantly injured by it. On that deadline, Neumann instead moved to dismiss her own appeal and requested immediate issuance of the mandate. Her motion included a certificate of service, and the appellee did not oppose it.

The Court’s Holding

In a per curiam memorandum opinion, the court granted Neumann’s motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismissed the appeal. The court taxed appellate costs against Neumann under Rule 42.1(d).

The court also directed its clerk to issue the mandate immediately under Rule 18.1(c). Because the appeal was voluntarily dismissed, the court denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution as moot.

Key Takeaways

  • An appellant may move to dismiss her own appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1).
  • The court taxed appellate costs against the appellant after granting voluntary dismissal.
  • The court ordered immediate issuance of the mandate and denied the appellee’s competing dismissal motion as moot.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the procedural effect of an appellant’s voluntary dismissal: the appellate court may terminate the appeal, allocate costs to the appellant, and accelerate issuance of the mandate. It also shows that a pending motion to dismiss for want of prosecution becomes moot once the court grants the appellant’s own dismissal request.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top