Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 09-25-00523-CV, February 12, 2026.
On appeal from the 284th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Ninth Court of Appeals granted an appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss an accelerated appeal prior to the issuance of a decision on the merits. This dismissal was executed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), illustrating the court’s adherence to party-driven resolution when procedural requirements are met before adjudication.
Relevance to Family Law
Accelerated appeals are common in family law, particularly concerning interlocutory orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) and appeals from terminations of parental rights. This case confirms the procedural reliability of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) in the Ninth Court, providing a clear path for practitioners to terminate appellate review when a settlement is reached or a strategic pivot is necessary during the pendency of an accelerated matter. For family law litigators, this reinforces the importance of timing; the window to control the narrative via voluntary dismissal remains open only until the court issues its decision.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Justin Marcus Kacz initiated an accelerated appeal following an order from the 284th District Court of Montgomery County. While the appeal was active, but prior to the Ninth Court of Appeals rendering a judgment or issuing an opinion on the underlying merits, the appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. The record does not indicate a cross-appeal or any opposition from the appellee, Diyana Mathews, that would prevent the voluntary termination of the proceedings.
Issues Decided
The court considered whether an appellant may voluntarily dismiss an accelerated appeal via an unopposed motion filed before the appellate court has issued a decision on the merits.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), which allows an appellate court to dismiss an appeal in accordance with a motion by the appellant, provided the action does not prevent a party from seeking affirmative relief they would otherwise be entitled to. Additionally, the court invoked Rule 43.2(f), which authorizes the court of appeals to dismiss an appeal as a form of final judgment.
Application
In its analysis, the court focused strictly on the procedural posture of the case and the timing of the appellant’s request. Because the motion to dismiss was “unopposed” and filed “before the appellate court issued a decision,” the court found that the requirements of Rule 42.1 were satisfied. There were no competing claims for relief or jurisdictional barriers mentioned that would necessitate a merits-based review. The court essentially treated the motion as a procedural right of the appellant to non-suit their own appeal, leading to a summary disposition of the case without a deep dive into the underlying trial court errors.
Holding
The court granted the appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the accelerated appeal. By doing so, the court exercised its authority under Rule 42.1(a)(1) to honor the appellant’s request to cease litigation.
The court formally dismissed the appeal under Rule 43.2(f). This holding concludes the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the matter without affirming or reversing the trial court’s original order, effectively leaving the lower court’s ruling intact.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case serves as a reminder of the “off-ramp” available during accelerated appellate proceedings. Whether a client settles a custody dispute via mediation while the appeal is pending or determines that the cost-benefit analysis of continuing the appeal no longer favors litigation, Rule 42.1 is the primary mechanism for a clean exit. Practitioners should ensure that any settlement agreement explicitly addresses the withdrawal of the appeal and the allocation of appellate costs to ensure the motion remains unopposed.
Checklists
Executing a Voluntary Dismissal
- Verify Opposition Status: Confirm with opposing counsel that the motion is truly unopposed to ensure a Per Curiam dismissal rather than a contested motion.
- Check the Clock: Ensure the motion is filed before the Court of Appeals issues its memorandum opinion or judgment to maintain control over the dismissal.
- Address Costs: Specify in the motion how appellate costs should be handled; under Rule 42.1(d), the court will tax costs against the appellant unless otherwise agreed.
Strategic Considerations for Accelerated Appeals
- Settlement Integration: Include language in mediated settlement agreements (MSAs) that mandates the filing of a Rule 42.1 motion within a specific timeframe.
- Mootness Review: Evaluate if the voluntary dismissal of an accelerated interlocutory appeal affects the timeline of the final trial on the merits.
- Preserve the Record: Be mindful that dismissing the appeal leaves the trial court’s order fully enforceable; ensure your client understands the status quo that will remain.
Citation
Justin Marcus Kacz v. Diyana Mathews, No. 09-25-00523-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~a6f1a259-7225-40c7-bf68-530c45860c32~~
Share this content: