Harriet H. Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
This text of Harriet H. Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Harriet H. Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00019-CV ___________________________
HARRIET H. NICHOLSON, Appellant
V.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025-005783-1
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Appellant, Harriet H. Nicholson, was declared a vexatious litigant on
January 5, 2022, and is now subject to a prefiling order that prohibits her from filing
any action in a Texas court without first obtaining permission from the local
administrative judge.1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.101. Despite that
prefiling order, Nicholson filed a notice of restricted appeal in this cause without an
accompanying order permitting the filing. Because Nicholson has not complied with
the filing requirements, we dismiss the appeal. See id. §§ 11.101, 11.1035.
Under Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, “a clerk of a
court may not file a[n] . . . appeal[] . . . presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject
to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the
appropriate local administrative judge . . . permitting the filing.” Id. § 11.103(a).2
Chapter 11 further describes the procedures courts must follow when vexatious-
litigant litigation is mistakenly filed. See id. § 11.1035(b). Courts must dismiss such
litigation unless the vexatious litigant demonstrates that she has obtained an order
permitting the filing from the appropriate local administrative judge. See id.; In re G.T.,
1 Available at Office of Court Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order, http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious- litigants/ (last updated Mar. 11, 2026, and last visited Mar. 16, 2026) The only statutory exceptions—neither of which applies here—authorize an 2
appellate-court clerk to file (1) an appeal from a prefiling order entered under Section 11.101 designating a person a vexatious litigant or (2) a timely writ of mandamus under Section 11.102. See id. § 11.103(d).
2 No. 04-25-00636-CV, 2025 WL 3538967, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 10,
2025, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Johnson v. Parker, No. 03-19-00067-CV, 2019
WL 3922908, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing
vexatious litigant’s appeal because litigant had failed to file proof of the local
administrative judge’s permission to appeal).
Because the record filed in this court did not show that Nicholson had
obtained permission from the local administrative judge to file this appeal, on
February 9, 2026, we notified her that this appeal would be dismissed unless she
obtained an order granting permission to proceed from the appropriate local
administrative judge by March 2, 2026. Nicholson has not furnished such an order,
but she has filed several other documents showing that she does not have permission
to pursue this appeal. In one, she admitted that she sought permission from the local
administrative judge to file this appeal, and she stated that the judge “left the bench,
made off-record calls, and returned to deny the prefiling order.” Nicholson has also
separately provided a copy of the judge’s signed order denying her request to “further
appeal the [underlying case] and appeal filed in the Court of Appeals for the Second
District of Texas, Cause 02-26-00019-CV.”
Because Section 11.1035 is clear that courts must dismiss an appeal unless the
litigant obtains an order permitting the filing—which Nicholson has not—we dismiss
her appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.1035(b); Tex. R. App. P. 42.3,
43.2(f); Hernandez v. Fernandez, No. 08-25-00188-CV, 2025 WL 2315442, at *1 (Tex.
3 App.—El Paso Aug. 11, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.); Morgan v. Abbott,
No. 02-19-00475-CV, 2020 WL 2073747, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 30,
2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). All pending motions are denied as moot.
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice
Delivered: March 19, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Harriet H. Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harriet-h-nicholson-v-nationstar-mortgage-llc-txctapp2-2026.