Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This memorandum opinion arises from an appeal taken from the 418th District Court in Montgomery County, Texas, in trial cause number 23-01-00151. The appellate case is captioned In the Interest of W.C.S. The opinion identifies Alexis Leighann Jamail as the appellant. On July 7, 2026, Jamail filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment signed on June 30, 2026.
After receiving the notice of appeal, the clerk of the court issued an invoice for the appellate filing fee. By letter dated August 18, 2026, the clerk notified the parties that Jamail had not paid the filing fee as directed in the court’s earlier letter and invoice. A Certified Bill of Costs for the filing fee was enclosed and provided to Jamail. The August 18 notice warned that the appeal would be dismissed without further notice unless Jamail paid the filing fee by August 28, 2026. The court stated that, as of the date of its opinion, Jamail had failed to pay the filing fee as directed.
The opinion also describes a separate problem concerning payment for the appellate record. On September 1, 2026, the trial court clerk notified the court of appeals that no payment arrangements for the record had been made. Also on September 1, the appellate clerk notified the parties that Jamail had not established indigent status and that the clerk’s record had not been filed because Jamail had failed to pay, or to arrange to pay, the fee required to prepare that record. The court warned Jamail that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she established that she had made the required arrangements to pay the fee or that she needed additional time to do so. The opinion cites Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b) in connection with that warning. According to the court, it received no response after the clerk sent the parties a letter warning of the consequences of the unpaid fees and missing arrangements.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The court’s stated reasons were that Jamail had not paid the filing fee for the appeal and had not explained why she had not paid the fee for the clerk’s record. The opinion states: “Appellant has not paid the filing fee for the appeal, nor has Appellant explained why she has not paid the fee for the clerk’s record; therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.” The court cited Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b), 42.3(c), and 43.2(f), and its formal disposition was “APPEAL DISMISSED.”
The ruling was procedural and based on the appellant’s failure to pay the required fees or arrange for payment after notice and warning, coupled with the absence of a response to the court’s warning letter. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying trial court judgment, does not describe the substantive issues Jamail intended to raise on appeal, and does not decide any evidentiary or legal question arising from the trial proceedings. It also does not announce a general rule that every unpaid fee automatically requires dismissal; rather, the court dismissed this appeal after the specific notices, deadlines, and lack of response described in the opinion.
The opinion was issued per curiam. It was submitted on November 4, 2026, and delivered on November 5, 2026. The official opinion’s Before line identifies Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
Key Takeaways
- The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, not on the merits of the underlying case.
- The appellant had not paid the appellate filing fee despite an invoice, a Certified Bill of Costs, and an August 28, 2026 payment deadline accompanied by a dismissal warning.
- The clerk’s record had not been filed because the appellant had not paid or arranged to pay the preparation fee, and the appellant had not established indigent status.
- After being warned to show that payment arrangements had been made or that more time was needed, the appellant did not respond.
- The opinion cites Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b), 42.3(c), and 43.2(f) in support of the dismissal.
Why It Matters
The decision is a practical reminder that prosecuting a Texas civil appeal requires attention to fee obligations and record-preparation arrangements, as well as to deadlines stated in clerk notices. Here, the court acted after multiple notices concerning the filing fee and the clerk’s record, an express warning of dismissal, and no response from the appellant. The opinion also shows the significance of establishing indigent status when a party cannot pay the required costs: the court noted that indigent status had not been established, but it did not separately analyze any indigency application or dispute.
For attorneys, the opinion’s scope is limited but clear. It supplies no substantive interpretation of the final judgment and no merits precedent concerning the underlying dispute. Its holding concerns dismissal of this particular appeal for want of prosecution under the circumstances recited by the court.