Vela v. Rio Rancho Properties — Voluntarily dismissed the tenants’ appeal

Case
Justin Vela, Godofredo Vela, Jane Vela, and all other occupants at 7903 Sutcliffe Drive, Unit 219, Austin, Texas 78744 v. Rio Rancho Properties, LLC
Court
Texas Eighth Court of Appeals
Judge
Lisa J. Soto (elected 2023)
Date Decided
July 16, 2026
Docket No.
08-26-00163-CV
Topics
Voluntary Dismissal; Appellate Procedure; Nonsuit
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Justin Vela, Godofredo Vela, Jane Vela, and other occupants appealed a case involving Rio Rancho Properties, LLC from Travis County Court at Law No. 1. The appeal was transferred to the Eighth Court of Appeals under the Texas Supreme Court’s docket-equalization program.

Appellants’ counsel filed a “Notice of Nonsuit of Appeal without Prejudice,” stating that the appellants intended to end their entire appeal. The appellate clerk advised the parties that the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize dismissal rather than nonsuit and construed the filing as a motion for voluntary dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1).

The clerk gave the appellants ten days to withdraw the filing or pay the required $10 fee and also allowed the appellee an opportunity to respond. The appellants timely confirmed payment of the fee, and Rio Rancho Properties did not respond.

The Court’s Holding

The court construed the appellants’ notice of nonsuit as a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal. It granted the motion and dismissed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1.

The memorandum opinion did not address the merits of the underlying dispute. Its ruling was limited to ending the appellate proceeding at the appellants’ request.

Key Takeaways

  • Texas appellate procedure provides for voluntary dismissal of an appeal, not a nonsuit of an appeal.
  • A filing labeled as a notice of nonsuit may be construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal when it clearly expresses an intent to end the appeal.
  • The court dismissed the appeal after the appellants paid the required fee and the appellee declined to respond.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates how Texas appellate courts may handle a procedurally mislabeled request to abandon an appeal. Rather than rejecting the filing solely because it used trial-court terminology, the court provided notice and an opportunity to cure before treating it as a voluntary-dismissal motion.

For appellate practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of requesting dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 and complying with applicable filing-fee requirements.

✉️ 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