Degrate Realty v. City of Temple — Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to unpaid clerk’s record fee

Case
Degrate Realty, LLC v. City of Temple
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District
Date Decided
June 26, 2026
Docket No.
08-26-00046-CV
Topics
Appellate Procedure, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Clerk’s Record Fees
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Degrate Realty appealed from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 in Bell County. The clerk’s record was due May 1, 2026. On May 4, 2026, the County Clerk notified the appellant that it had failed to pay for or arrange payment of the clerk’s record preparation fee. Despite receiving written notice that the appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance, the appellant did not pay the fee.

The court issued multiple orders requiring the appellant to provide proof of payment or payment arrangements. On June 2, 2026, the court ordered the appellant to submit proof by June 12, 2026. By the June 12 deadline, the appellant only submitted a copy of an email requesting fee information but had not actually paid the required fee or shown entitlement to proceed without payment.

The Court’s Holding

The Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The court found that the appellant’s failure to pay the clerk’s record fee, despite multiple notices and court orders over more than five weeks, constituted grounds for dismissal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2), (c), 37.3(b), and 42.3(b), (c).

The dismissal was procedural in nature—the court did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute between Degrate Realty and the City of Temple. Rather, the court enforced the mandatory procedural requirements for prosecuting an appeal, finding that the appellant’s repeated non-compliance with payment obligations and court orders warranted dismissal.

Key Takeaways

  • Appellants must pay clerk’s record fees or make payment arrangements by the deadline, or they risk dismissal of their appeal.
  • Courts will enforce compliance with appellate procedural rules even when the underlying merits are potentially meritorious.
  • Mere requests for fee information do not satisfy payment obligations; actual payment or documented payment arrangements are required.
  • Multiple notices and court orders do not reset deadlines—appellants must act promptly to cure procedural defects.

Why It Matters

This decision underscores that appellate practice requires strict adherence to procedural rules and payment obligations. Litigants cannot preserve their right to appeal through negligence or delay; the appellate process has mandatory gatekeeping requirements that must be satisfied to proceed on the merits.

For practitioners, the case illustrates that in-forma pauperis status or fee waivers require affirmative proof of entitlement—requests for information about how to proceed are insufficient. Appellants must either pay the clerk’s record fee or clearly establish their right to proceed without payment within the court’s deadlines.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top