Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Bennett v. Bowman — Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Shea Bennett and Any Other Occupants v. Blake Bowman
Court
Texas Sixth Court of Appeals
Judge
Stevens, C.J.; van Cleef, J.; Rambin, J.
Date Decided
August 28, 2026
Docket No.
06-26-00037-CV
Topics
Appellate Procedure; Want of Prosecution; Mootness
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Shea Bennett filed a notice of appeal from the Gregg County Court at Law No. 2’s March 26, 2026, judgment against her. The clerk’s record was due July 24, 2026, but had not been filed by July 28, and Bennett had not designated the record.

On July 28, the appellate clerk notified Bennett of the deficiency and warned that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she responded by August 7. Bennett did not respond. The court also noted that the trial court had granted Bennett’s motion to set aside the March 26 judgment after an April 17 hearing.

The Court’s Holding

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), an appellate court may dismiss when an appellant fails to comply with a clerk’s notice requiring a response or other action within a specified time.

Because Bennett neither responded to the clerk’s notice nor satisfactorily explained her inaction, dismissal was warranted under Rules 42.3(b) and (c). The court added that the appeal was also moot because the trial court had set aside the judgment being appealed.

Key Takeaways

  • An appellant’s failure to respond timely to an appellate clerk’s deficiency notice may support dismissal for want of prosecution.
  • The court dismissed after Bennett failed to designate the record and did not respond to the clerk’s warning.
  • The appeal was independently moot because the trial court had set aside the challenged judgment.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that appellants must timely arrange for the appellate record and respond to deficiency notices. It also illustrates that an appeal ordinarily cannot proceed after the trial court has set aside the judgment under review.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top