Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eric Springstun, acting pro se, sued The Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maintenance Association and several individuals associated with it. The defendants alleged that, after Springstun was automatically removed from the association’s board for failing to pay required assessments, he repeatedly filed lawsuits concerning substantially the same parties and disputes. His claims included alleged mismanagement of association funds, breach of fiduciary duty, selective enforcement, and defamation.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court declared Springstun a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. It prohibited him from filing new litigation in Texas without permission from the appropriate local administrative judge and required him to post $25,000 in security to continue the underlying suit. Springstun brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the evidentiary support for the vexatious-litigant finding, the security requirement, and the wording of the prefiling restriction.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed Springstun’s challenge to the $25,000 security requirement for lack of jurisdiction. Chapter 11 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from the portion of an order requiring a person declared vexatious to furnish security. The court explained, however, that it did have interlocutory jurisdiction to review the appealable prefiling order and the related vexatious-litigant designation.
The court affirmed the vexatious-litigant finding because Springstun did not provide a reporter’s record from the evidentiary hearing. Without that record, the appellate court was required to presume that the evidence supported the trial court’s ruling. It also rejected Springstun’s argument that the prefiling restriction was overbroad. Although the order did not reproduce the statute’s exact language, it expressly required permission under section 11.102, which supplies the governing standard, and therefore adequately incorporated the statutory procedure.
Key Takeaways
- An order requiring a vexatious litigant to post security is not independently reviewable through an interlocutory appeal under Chapter 11.
- A statutory prefiling order is immediately appealable, allowing review of the vexatious-litigant designation and restriction on new litigation.
- An appellant who omits the reporter’s record from the relevant evidentiary hearing generally cannot prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order.
- A prefiling order need not quote section 11.102 verbatim when it expressly incorporates that provision and its permission procedure.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a jurisdictional line between two forms of relief commonly included in a Texas vexatious-litigant order: appellate courts may immediately review a prefiling restriction, but they generally may not review a security requirement until an appealable final judgment exists.
It also underscores the importance of supplying a proper reporter’s record. An unofficial transcript attached to an appellate brief is not a substitute for the certified record, and its absence can require the court to presume that the evidence supports the trial court’s decision.