Background
Jessica Sisney, individually and as next friend of J.S., a minor, and Richard Sisney filed a notice of appeal from a summary judgment in favor of GWR Webster LLC d/b/a Great Wolf Lodge Webster. The appeal came to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont from the 457th District Court in Montgomery County, Texas. The underlying trial matter was identified as Trial Cause No. 26-04-07258. According to the memorandum opinion, the summary judgment became final upon severance into that trial cause number.
The appellate court’s opinion addresses the processing of the clerk’s record rather than the merits of the summary judgment. On September 18, 2026, the trial court clerk notified the appellate court that no payment arrangements for the record had been made. On that same date, the court notified the parties that the appellants had not established indigent status and that the clerk’s record had not been filed because the appellants had failed to pay, or to arrange to pay, the fee required to prepare it.
The court warned the appellants that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless they established that they had made the arrangements required to pay the fee or that they needed more time to do so. In connection with that warning, the opinion cited Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b). After the clerk of the appellate court sent the parties a letter warning of the consequences of failing to take the action necessary to file the clerk’s record, the court did not receive a response.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The memorandum opinion states that the appellants had not explained why they had not paid the fee for the clerk’s record. The dismissal sentence cites Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c) and 43.2(f). The opinion’s earlier citation to Rule 37.3(b) appears in connection with the court’s warning about the arrangements needed to avoid dismissal, not in the dismissal sentence itself.
The opinion does not review the summary judgment, assess the parties’ underlying claims, or discuss the substantive basis for the trial court’s ruling. Its stated procedural basis for dismissal is the appellants’ failure to pay or arrange to pay for the clerk’s record after notice and warning, coupled with the absence of a response and the absence of an explanation for the nonpayment. The opinion also notes that the appellants had not established indigent status.
The order concludes with the directive “APPEAL DISMISSED.” The memorandum opinion was issued per curiam. It was submitted on November 4, 2026, and delivered on November 5, 2026, before Chief Justice Golemon and Justices Johnson and Chambers.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth District dismissed the Sisney appellants’ appeal for want of prosecution after the clerk’s record remained unfiled because the required fee had not been paid or payment arrangements made.
- The court had notified the parties on September 18, 2026, that indigent status had not been established and warned that dismissal would follow unless the appellants showed payment arrangements or a need for additional time.
- The dismissal sentence cites Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c) and 43.2(f); Rule 37.3(b) is cited earlier in connection with the warning.
- The opinion resolves the appeal on a procedural record-fee issue and does not address the merits of the summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the appellate consequences of failing to take the steps necessary to secure the clerk’s record after receiving notice from the trial court clerk and a warning from the appellate court. Here, the court identified both the missing payment arrangements and the lack of any response to its warning before dismissing the appeal.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of addressing record-preparation fees promptly and responding to appellate correspondence about a delinquent record. The court’s disposition was tied to the circumstances described in this appeal, including the absence of established indigent status, the lack of payment arrangements, and the appellants’ failure to explain the nonpayment or request more time as invited by the court’s warning.