Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Travis Hawk Jr. and Rebecca Mae Hawk filed a pro se notice of appeal from a final order dismissing their claims against several automobile dealerships, service and analytics companies, an individual defendant, and Santander Consumer USA Inc. The appellate clerk directed the Hawks to pay the $205 filing fee, but they sought permission to proceed without paying costs.
After obtaining a supplemental clerk’s record concerning indigency, the court noted that the trial court had found the Hawks were not indigent. The appellees also opposed the request and presented arguments supporting that finding. The appellate court denied the Hawks’ indigency-related motions, but the Hawks still did not pay the appellate filing fee, additional motion fees, or the cost of preparing the clerk’s record.
The clerk warned the Hawks that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless they arranged payment for the clerk’s record and submitted proof within ten days. The Hawks instead filed additional motions renewing their indigency claim, challenging the fee demands, seeking transmission of the record without payment, and requesting consolidation of related proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and 42.3(c). Those provisions permit dismissal when an appellant fails to comply with the appellate rules, a court order, or a clerk’s notice requiring action within a specified time.
The court found that the Hawks had neither paid the filing fee nor paid or arranged to pay for the clerk’s record. It also concluded that the record did not support their claim that they were entitled to proceed without payment of costs. The court therefore denied all relief requested in their pending motions and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who is not excused from costs must pay the required appellate filing fees.
- When the appellant is responsible for obtaining the clerk’s record, failure to pay or arrange payment after notice can support dismissal for want of prosecution.
- Renewing an indigency claim does not prevent dismissal when the record does not establish entitlement to proceed without costs and the court has already denied that relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that procedural and payment requirements can determine whether an appellate court reaches the merits. Litigants who seek to proceed without costs must establish their entitlement under the applicable rules; otherwise, they must timely pay required fees and arrange for preparation of the appellate record.
For practitioners, the opinion also highlights the importance of responding directly to clerk notices and court orders within the stated deadlines. Failure to cure fee and record deficiencies may result in dismissal without review of the underlying judgment.