Background
Self-represented appellant William L. Brite sought to appeal a June 18, 2026 judgment in his case against Basa Development, Ltd. He filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2026, but the electronically filed notice did not contain the signature required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(c)(1).
Brite also submitted a motion to extend the deadline for his notice of appeal. The appellate clerk notified him that the notice appeared late but within Rule 26.3’s extension period. The clerk did not file the extension motion because it was unsigned and omitted required trial-court case information, and warned that failure to establish a timely appeal could result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Brite did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Although the defects in Brite’s documents were curable by amendment—and a compliant amendment would relate back to the original document’s filing date—Brite failed to cure them after receiving notice from the clerk.
The court dismissed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(f). It added that any motion for rehearing must be signed and timely filed.
Key Takeaways
- An electronically filed document must include either “/s/” followed by the signer’s typed name or an electronic or scanned signature, unless the document is notarized or sworn.
- A motion to extend the deadline for a notice of appeal must identify the trial court and provide the judgment date, trial-court case number, and case style, along with the other required information.
- Curable filing defects can relate back to the original filing date, but an appellant who does not amend after notice risks dismissal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that potentially curable procedural defects can still end an appeal when the appellant does not respond to the court’s notice. Self-represented litigants, like represented parties, must comply with appellate signature and filing requirements.