Background
Kyle Bartholomew and Shannon Ramirez filed a notice of appeal on July 15, 2026, after the County Court at Law No. 3 of Hays County, the Honorable Elaine Brown presiding, orally denied at a July 6, 2026 hearing a plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence summary-judgment motion filed by them and Richard Thompson. The trial court signed its interlocutory order on July 23, 2026, and the appeal was docketed as cause number 03-26-00672-CV.
On September 1, 2026, Thompson filed a separate “Notice of Restricted Appeal” from the same order, docketed as cause number 03-26-00820-CV. Thompson later moved in the earlier appeal for leave to amend the notice of appeal and join the July 15 notice, explaining that his September 1 filing had been incorrectly captioned as a restricted appeal and should instead have been treated as an ordinary notice joining the already-perfected appeal. He noted that a restricted appeal was inappropriate because he had appeared through counsel at the hearing that produced the complained-of order.
Thompson filed his motion and proposed amended/joint notice on September 18, 2026, before Bartholomew and Ramirez filed their appellants’ brief. Bartholomew and Ramirez joined the proposed amended notice, and appellee William Bates filed no response opposing the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court construed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(g), which permits an amended notice of appeal correcting a defect or omission to be filed in the appellate court at any time before the appellant’s brief is filed, subject to being struck for cause on motion of an affected party. After the brief is filed, amendment is allowed only on leave of the appellate court.
Relying on St. Mina Auto Sales, Inc. v. Al-Muasher and the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Warwick Towers, the court explained that Rule 25.1(g) is not limited to amendments filed by the original appellant and that courts may permit an amended notice to add an appellant, balancing the equities and circumstances of the individual case. The court contrasted Cortez v. Brown, where leave to amend was denied because the amendment was sought only after the appellant’s brief had been filed.
The court held that Thompson was not required to obtain leave because he filed the amended notice before Bartholomew and Ramirez’s brief was filed, and no party moved to strike it for cause. The amended/joint notice was deemed filed September 18, 2026, as a regular rather than restricted appeal. The court granted consolidation of cause number 03-26-00820-CV into cause number 03-26-00672-CV, dismissed cause number 03-26-00820-CV, and restyled the consolidated appeal as Kyle Bartholomew, Shannon Ramirez, and Richard Thompson v. William Bates.
Key Takeaways
- Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(g), an amended notice of appeal may add an appellant without leave of court if filed before the appellant’s brief is filed.
- A notice incorrectly captioned as a restricted appeal may be corrected by amendment and treated as a regular appeal when the restricted-appeal requirements are not met.
- The amendment rule is not limited to the original appellant; courts weigh the circumstances and equities of each case.
- The court consolidated the duplicate appeal into the earlier cause, dismissed the later docket number, and restyled the case to include all appellants.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces that Texas appellate courts treat Rule 25.1(g) as a procedural, nonjurisdictional mechanism that can accommodate late-joining appellants when amendment occurs before briefing and no prejudice is shown. It also illustrates the practical consequence of timing: amendments sought after the appellant’s brief is filed require leave and may be denied.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of correctly designating the type of appeal and promptly correcting caption or party errors before briefing begins.