Eighth Court Dismisses Appeal for Failure to Pay Filing Fees and Arrange Clerk’s Record
Dixson v. Marmolejo, 08-26-00047-CV, February 24, 2026.
On appeal from the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas
Synopsis
The Eighth Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution due to the appellant’s failure to pay the required filing fee and failure to arrange for the preparation of the clerk’s record. Despite multiple notices and warnings of impending dismissal, the appellant failed to provide documentation of payment or an excuse for non-payment, necessitating dismissal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 and 42.3.
Relevance to Family Law
In family law litigation, where the emotional and financial stakes are frequently at their zenith following a final decree or a modification order, the administrative requirements of an appeal are often overlooked. This case serves as a critical reminder that the appellate court’s jurisdiction is contingent upon strict adherence to procedural prerequisites. For a practitioner representing a client in a custody or high-net-worth property dispute, the failure to secure the clerk’s record or satisfy filing fees is a fatal error that results in the summary termination of the client’s right to appellate review, regardless of the merits of the underlying legal arguments.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appellant, Michael Dixson, sought to appeal a judgment from the 345th District Court of Travis County. Following a docket equalization transfer from the Third Court of Appeals to the Eighth Court of Appeals, the Clerk of the Court notified Dixson on January 21, 2026, that the appellate filing fee remained unpaid. The court provided a deadline of January 31, 2026, to rectify the deficiency. Concurrently, the District Clerk filed a “Notification of Late Record” on January 27, 2026, stating that Dixson had not paid for the preparation of the clerk’s record. The Court of Appeals issued a second notice, warning Dixson that the appeal would be dismissed unless he provided documentation by February 6, 2026, showing that the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements had been made. As of the date of the opinion, the appellant had not responded to either notice.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether an appeal is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution when an appellant fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of paying filing fees and arranging for the payment of the clerk’s record after receiving proper notice from the appellate court.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, which mandates the payment of filing fees in civil cases unless the party is excused by statute or rule. The court also relied upon Rule 37.3(b), which authorizes dismissal when no clerk’s record is filed due to the appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements. Finally, the court invoked Rule 42.3(b) and (c), which grant appellate courts the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a notice from the clerk or a court order.
Application
The court’s application of the law was purely procedural. It established a timeline of non-compliance that began with the initial failure to pay the filing fee and was compounded by the failure to fund the clerk’s record. The court followed the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals (as the transferring court) while applying the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to the facts of the appellant’s inaction. Because the appellant was given clear deadlines and explicit warnings that his appeal was in jeopardy, his continued silence was interpreted as a failure to prosecute the case. The court treated these administrative requirements not as mere suggestions, but as mandatory hurdles that, when ignored, divest the appellant of the opportunity for a substantive hearing.
Holding
The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution. It concluded that the appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee or provide a valid excuse, coupled with the failure to arrange for the clerk’s record, left the court with no alternative but to exercise its dismissal authority under Rules 5 and 42.3.
The court further held that all pending motions were dismissed as moot, effectively closing the case and leaving the trial court’s judgment undisturbed.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the necessity of a post-trial checklist that includes immediate verification of appellate funding. It is common for clients to experience “litigation fatigue” after a trial, but the appellate clock does not pause for client indecision. Practitioners should consider obtaining a retainer for appellate costs—specifically for the clerk’s and reporter’s records—before filing the Notice of Appeal. If the client is truly indigent, a Rule 145 Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs must be filed immediately to prevent the exact scenario that unfolded in this case.
Checklists
Managing the Appellate Launch
- Verify the filing fee amount for the specific Court of Appeals to which the case is assigned or transferred.
- Confirm with the client that appellate costs (filing fees and record preparation) are funded within 10 days of filing the Notice of Appeal.
- Monitor the electronic filing system for “Notification of Late Record” alerts from the District Clerk.
Responding to Administrative Notices
- Treat any letter from the Appellate Clerk regarding fees as a “red alert” deadline requiring immediate action.
- If a client cannot pay for the record, file a motion for extension of time in the appellate court while simultaneously seeking a payment plan with the District Clerk.
- Document all “arrangements” made with the District Clerk in writing and file that documentation with the Court of Appeals to satisfy Rule 37.3(b).
Citation
Dixson v. Marmolejo, No. 08-26-00047-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 24, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~426c97c0-8bfe-4770-8366-6867027510e8~~
Share this content:
