Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 02-26-00019-CV, March 19, 2026.
On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1, Tarrant County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se restricted appeal because the appellant was subject to a Chapter 11 prefiling order and had not obtained permission from the local administrative judge to file it. The court grounded the dismissal in the mandatory-dismissal command of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11: when an appeal subject to a prefiling order is filed without the required permission, the appellate court must dismiss it.
Relevance to Family Law
Family law practitioners sometimes litigate against an opposing party who is subject to a prefiling order entered under Chapter 11. This opinion is a useful reminder that, for such a party, appellate review is conditioned on first obtaining written permission from the appropriate local administrative judge. Where that permission has not been obtained, an appeal—including a restricted appeal—can be dismissed on the permit defect alone, without the parties or the court reaching the merits. The mechanism is procedural and status-based; it turns on the existence of a prefiling order and the absence of a permit, not on any characterization of the opposing party’s conduct.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Harriet H. Nicholson, appearing pro se, was declared a vexatious litigant on January 5, 2022, and became subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 prohibiting her from filing an action in a Texas court without first obtaining permission from the appropriate local administrative judge.
Nicholson filed a notice of restricted appeal in this cause without an accompanying order permitting the filing. The court notified her on February 9, 2026 that the appeal would be dismissed unless she furnished, by March 2, 2026, an order from the appropriate local administrative judge granting permission to proceed. She did not furnish such an order. Instead, she filed documents reflecting that permission had been denied—including a copy of the local administrative judge’s signed order denying her request to appeal in this cause, and a statement that the judge had “left the bench, made off-record calls, and returned to deny the prefiling order.”
Issues Decided
- Whether the court must dismiss a restricted appeal filed by a pro se litigant subject to a Section 11.101 prefiling order where the litigant has not obtained an order from the appropriate local administrative judge permitting the filing.
Rules Applied
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.101 — Authorizes a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing, pro se, an action in a Texas court without permission from the appropriate local administrative judge.
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(a) — A clerk may not file an appeal presented pro se by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge permitting the filing.
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(d) — Provides the narrow exceptions (an appeal from the prefiling order itself, or a timely writ of mandamus under Section 11.102), neither of which applied here.
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.1035(b) — Where such litigation is mistakenly filed, the court must dismiss it unless the litigant demonstrates that she has obtained the required permission order.
- Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f) — Procedural mechanisms for involuntary dismissal of appeals.
Application
The court applied the Chapter 11 framework directly. Because Nicholson was subject to a Section 11.101 prefiling order, Section 11.103(a) barred the clerk from filing her pro se appeal absent a permit from the appropriate local administrative judge. Once it was apparent that no permit had been obtained, Section 11.1035(b) required dismissal: that provision directs that the court must dismiss the litigation unless the litigant demonstrates that she has obtained the required permission. Nicholson not only failed to produce a permit but affirmatively placed the denial order before the court. Dismissal therefore followed under the statute’s mandatory terms.
Practical Application
When a notice of appeal is filed by a pro se opposing party, confirm at the outset whether that party is subject to a Chapter 11 prefiling order, and if so, whether the appellate record contains the required permission from the local administrative judge.
If you represent a party who obtained a favorable judgment and the opposing pro se party files an appeal, it is worth confirming the opposing party’s status on the Office of Court Administration’s statewide List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order. If the party is listed and the record does not contain a permit from the appropriate local administrative judge, the absence of that permit is a basis for dismissal under Section 11.1035 that can be raised without briefing the merits.
Checklists
Vetting a Pro Se Appellant
- Consult the OCA’s statewide List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order.
- Review the terms of the underlying prefiling order to confirm its scope and that it reaches the current filing.
- Examine the appellate record for an order from the appropriate local administrative judge granting permission to file (signed by the local administrative judge, not the trial judge).
Citation
Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 02-26-00019-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion of the court can be found here: Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
A prefiling order entered under Chapter 11 is not limited to the type of case in which it arose; a party subject to such an order remains subject to it in later, unrelated litigation, including family law matters. If a party subject to a prefiling order attempts to pursue an appeal—including a restricted appeal—without first obtaining permission from the appropriate local administrative judge, Nicholson illustrates that the appeal may be dismissed on that defect alone.
Restricted appeals are frequently used by parties who assert that they did not participate in the trial-court proceeding, so the finality of a decree can remain in question after judgment. Where the appealing party is subject to a prefiling order, Chapter 11 places an additional, threshold condition on appellate review: the appropriate local administrative judge—not the appellate court—decides in the first instance whether to permit the filing.
~~09238712-71e5-4793-909f-d411727c61ec~~
Share this content: