Natalie Anderson v. Kyle Anderson, as Independent of the Estate of John William Anderson III, and Kyle Anderson, Individually
This text of Natalie Anderson v. Kyle Anderson, as Independent of the Estate of John William Anderson III, and Kyle Anderson, Individually (Natalie Anderson v. Kyle Anderson, as Independent of the Estate of John William Anderson III, and Kyle Anderson, Individually) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) 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
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00349-CV __________________
NATALIE ANDERSON, Appellant
V.
KYLE ANDERSON, AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN WILLIAM ANDERSON III, DECEASED, AND KYLE ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-33538 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 22, 2025, Natalie Anderson filed a notice of appeal from a final
judgment signed on August 21, 2025. Upon receiving the notice of appeal from
Appellant, the Clerk of the Court issued an invoice for the filing fee for the appeal.
By letter dated November 6, 2025, we notified the parties that Appellant had not
paid the filing fee as directed in our letter and invoice previously forwarded to
Appellant. A Certified Bill of Costs for the filing fee was enclosed and provided to
1 Appellant. We warned Appellant in our letter dated November 6, 2025, that unless
the filing fee was paid, the appeal would be dismissed without further notice on any
date after Friday, November 21, 2025. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). As of this date,
Appellant has failed to pay the filing fee as directed by this Court.
On December 19, 2025, the County Clerk notified the Court that Appellant
had failed to pay or to make the arrangements necessary for the County Clerk to
prepare the clerk’s record. We notified the parties that Appellant had not established
indigent status, and that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to Appellant’s
failure to pay or to arrange to pay the fee required to prepare the clerk’s record. We
warned Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless
Appellant established that she had made the arrangements required to pay the fee or
that she needed more time to do so. See id. 37.3(b). After the Clerk of this Court sent
the parties a letter warning of the consequences of a failure to take the action
necessary to file the clerk’s record, the Court did not receive a response.
Appellant has not paid the filing fee for the appeal, nor has she explained why
she has not paid the fee for the clerk’s record; therefore, we dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution. Id. 5, 42.3(c), 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on March 11, 2026 Opinion Delivered March 12, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Natalie Anderson v. Kyle Anderson, as Independent of the Estate of John William Anderson III, and Kyle Anderson, Individually, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natalie-anderson-v-kyle-anderson-as-independent-of-the-estate-of-john-txctapp9-2026.