Reported / Citable
Background
Marjorie Washington appealed a judgment from County Court at Law No. 3 in Tarrant County, Texas, in a case against Felix Apt S2CC, LLC (Docket No. 2025-002620-3). Her opening brief was due February 6, 2026, but was not filed by that date.
On March 3, 2026, the Second Court of Appeals notified Washington that her brief had not been filed as required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a), and warned that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she filed both a brief and a motion reasonably explaining the late filing by March 13, 2026. Washington filed the brief on March 13, but did not file the required accompanying motion for extension.
The court issued two additional notices — on March 19 and April 29, 2026 — each informing Washington that she must file a motion for leave to file her untimely brief, with deadlines of March 30 and May 11, 2026, respectively. Washington did not respond to either notice.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f). The per curiam panel — Justices Bassel, Womack, and Wallach — found that Washington had failed to file a motion for leave reasonably explaining her failure to timely file the brief and the need for an extension, even after being afforded multiple opportunities to do so.
The dismissal was procedural: the court did not reach the merits of the underlying appeal. Washington’s failure to comply with basic appellate briefing requirements and to respond to multiple court-issued cure notices left the court with no basis to allow the appeal to proceed.
Key Takeaways
- Filing an untimely brief alone is insufficient — Texas appellate rules require an accompanying motion for extension that reasonably explains the delay.
- The Second Court of Appeals issued three separate notices over nearly three months before dismissing, underscoring that courts will provide opportunities to cure procedural deficiencies before taking the drastic step of dismissal.
- Failure to respond to any court notices or deadlines will result in dismissal for want of prosecution under Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), regardless of whether a brief was ultimately submitted.
Why It Matters
This case is a reminder that appellate practice demands strict compliance with procedural rules, including the requirement to seek leave when a brief is filed late. Submitting the brief itself — without the required motion — does not cure the default. Attorneys and pro se litigants alike must respond to court notices promptly; silence in the face of multiple warnings will be treated as abandonment of the appeal.
For litigants in residential or commercial landlord-tenant disputes, where the underlying stakes may be significant, a procedural dismissal can be outcome-determinative. Counsel should calendar briefing deadlines carefully and act immediately upon receiving any notice of deficiency from the appellate court.