Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronald Hayes appealed from a final judgment in an eviction suit. The appeal came to the Ninth Court of Appeals from the County Court at Law No. 1 in Jefferson County, Texas, in trial cause number 25CCCV1064. Hayes filed his notice of appeal on January 7, 2026. The appellee was MacK Beaumont, LLC.
Months later, on September 16, 2026, the clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified the parties that Hayes had not filed a brief. The clerk advised the parties that the appeal would be submitted without briefs unless, by Monday, September 28, 2026, Hayes filed both a brief and a motion to extend the deadline for filing his brief. The court also warned Hayes that if the appeal were submitted without briefs, the court could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
On October 7, 2026, the clerk notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the court on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, without briefs and without oral argument. The memorandum opinion cites Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.8 in connection with that submission setting. The case was in fact submitted on October 28, 2026, and the court issued its opinion on November 5, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Its reasoning was direct: Hayes had not filed a brief assigning any error to any of the trial court’s rulings. Because no brief had been filed, the court treated the appeal as subject to dismissal rather than reaching any underlying issue from the eviction judgment.
The opinion cites Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f), along with Rule 39.8, in support of the dismissal. The court did not describe the merits of the eviction case, did not identify any specific trial-court ruling beyond the final judgment being appealed, and did not discuss any substantive landlord-tenant issue. The holding was procedural and tied to the appellant’s failure to brief the appeal after notice and warning from the clerk.
The disposition was stated in a single line: “APPEAL DISMISSED.” The opinion was issued per curiam, with the case submitted on October 28, 2026, and the opinion delivered on November 5, 2026. The official opinion’s Before line lists Golemon, C.J., and Wright and Chambers, JJ.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed Ronald Hayes’s eviction appeal for want of prosecution because he filed no appellate brief.
- The clerk had expressly warned Hayes on September 16, 2026, that the appeal could be dismissed if it were submitted without briefs.
- The court relied on Texas appellate rules governing briefing and dismissal, citing Rules 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f), and 39.8.
- The decision is procedural only; the court did not address the merits of the eviction judgment or any trial-court ruling.
Why It Matters
This memorandum opinion is a straightforward reminder that an appellant who does not file a brief risks dismissal for want of prosecution, especially after the appellate clerk gives notice, sets a deadline, and warns that dismissal may follow. For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of calendar control in Texas intermediate appellate practice: once the clerk flags a missing brief and sets a submission date, inaction can end the appeal without any review of the trial court’s judgment.
The opinion also illustrates the limited scope of such dismissals. The court did not affirm on the merits or evaluate any alleged error in the eviction proceedings. It simply enforced appellate procedural requirements. As a result, the decision is most useful as a procedural caution about perfecting and maintaining an appeal, not as authority on the substantive law governing eviction cases.