Watkins v. Watkins, 09-25-00215-CV, March 19, 2026.
On appeal from the 253rd District Court, Liberty County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed a divorce appeal after the appellant failed to pay the required filing fee or submit a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. Despite the Court providing multiple extensions and formal warnings that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution, the appellant failed to comply with the procedural mandates of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 and 42.3(c).
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of high-conflict family law litigation, the “notice of appeal” is often used as a tool for delay, keeping a cloud over property divisions or custodial arrangements. This case serves as a critical reminder to trial practitioners that an appeal is not truly “perfected” in a functional sense until the appellant clears the financial hurdles set by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. For an appellee seeking to enforce a final decree of divorce or a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), monitoring the appellant’s failure to pay filing fees or properly establish indigency offers a streamlined path to dismissal, ensuring the finality of the trial court’s judgment without the necessity of briefing the merits.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Bryce Mathew Watkins filed a notice of appeal regarding a final decree of divorce signed on May 6, 2025. Upon receipt of the notice, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals issued an invoice for the required filing fee. After the appellant failed to pay, the Court issued a formal notification on July 21, 2025, enclosing a Certified Bill of Costs and warning that failure to pay by July 31, 2025, would result in dismissal. On August 1, 2025, the appellant requested a fee waiver, prompting the Clerk to instruct him on the necessity of filing a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Although the Court granted a second extension until September 30, 2025, and warned the parties that it would proceed as if the appellant were not indigent if the statement was not received, the appellant failed to file the required documentation or pay the fee.
Issues Decided
- Whether an appellate court must dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to pay the filing fee or establish indigency after multiple notices and warnings.
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5: Governs the duty of the appellant to pay required costs and fees upon filing a notice of appeal.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c): Authorizes involuntary dismissal when an appellant fails to comply with a requirement of the rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(f): Permits the court of appeals to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution.
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145: Outlines the requirements for a party to file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs to proceed without paying costs.
Application
The Ninth Court of Appeals applied a strict procedural timeline to the appellant’s inaction. While the Court demonstrated initial leniency by granting a second extension for the filing of the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs, it emphasized that such leniency is not indefinite. The legal narrative here is one of procedural exhaustion: the Court issued an invoice, a Certified Bill of Costs, and a specific warning under Rule 42.3(c). By failing to provide the financial disclosures required by Rule 145, the appellant left the Court with no evidence of indigency. Consequently, the Court treated the non-payment as a failure to prosecute the appeal, as the appellant failed to meet the threshold financial requirements to maintain the case on the docket.
Holding
The Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The holding clarifies that the appellant’s failure to either pay the filing fee or establish indigency through the proper forms—despite receiving multiple extensions and clear warnings—mandates dismissal under Rules 5, 42.3(c), and 43.2(f).
The dismissal was ordered per curiam, signaling that the failure to comply with basic fee requirements is a settled matter of appellate procedure that does not require a full signed opinion on the merits.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case highlights the “gatekeeping” phase of an appeal. If you represent the appellee, you should not wait for the appellant’s brief to begin your strategy. Instead, monitor the appellate clerk’s correspondence. If an appellant—particularly a pro se party or a disgruntled spouse—fails to pay the filing fee, the appellee should resist the urge to intervene and instead allow the Court’s internal “want of prosecution” clock to run. If you are representing the appellant, the takeaway is absolute: the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an indigent appeal and must be filed in both the trial and appellate courts to ensure the record is prepared and the appeal remains viable.
Checklists
Managing the Appellant’s Financial Prerequisites
- Verify the filing fee has been paid within ten days of filing the Notice of Appeal.
- If the client is indigent, file the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs simultaneously with the Notice of Appeal.
- Ensure the Statement of Inability is filed in the trial court to secure a free clerk’s and reporter’s record under TRCP 145.
- Calendar all “warning” dates from the Appellate Clerk; these are rarely extended more than twice.
Strategic Monitoring for the Appellee
- Subscribe to docket alerts for the relevant Court of Appeals.
- Monitor for the issuance of a “Certified Bill of Costs” or a “Rule 42.3 Notice.”
- Avoid filing substantive motions or responses that might waive costs until the appellant has actually perfected the appeal by paying the fee.
- If the Court’s deadline passes without payment, consider a letter to the Clerk or a formal motion to dismiss for want of prosecution to accelerate the closing of the file.
Citation
Watkins v. Watkins, No. 09-25-00215-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion of the Court can be accessed here: Full Opinion
~~6cc02634-917f-43bb-83da-829f27dbace5~~
Share this content: