Nathaniel Freeman, Jr., Larry Freeman, Redick Freeman & Rachel Freeman v. Brenda M. Freeman-Heslip

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00206-CV

NATHANIEL FREEMAN, JR., LARRY FREEMAN, REDICK FREEMAN & RACHEL FREEMAN, Appellants

v.

BRENDA M. FREEMAN-HESLIP, Appellee

From the 335th District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 30977

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 10, 2024, Nathaniel Freeman, Jr., and Brenda Freeman-Heslip filed

an “Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal with Prejudice,” asserting that they have entered

into a Rule 11 Settlement Agreement in the underlying proceeding. Accordingly, the

parties request that we dismiss this appeal with prejudice, and that we expedite

issuance of the mandate.

On January 6, 2024, this Court sent the following letter to the remaining

defendants at the trial court level, who had not filed notices of appeal but were included

in the first notice of appeal filed by Nathaniel Freeman, Jr.:

On July 3, 2024, a notice of appeal was filed by the Defendant, Nathaniel Freeman, Jr. The notice of appeal was unsigned and included the names of all defendants at the trial court level. On July 11, 2024, an amended notice of appeal was filed. The amended notice of appeal included only Nathaniel Freeman Jr.’s name and was signed by him. It appears from the notice of appeal and amended notice of appeal that Nathaniel Freeman Jr. is appearing pro se.

The July 3 notice of appeal was defective as to the remaining defendants—Larry Freeman, Redick Freeman, and Rachel Freeman— because it was not signed by these parties or on their behalf by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Texas. Generally, an individual must appear in person or by an attorney. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996).

Unless a licensed attorney or the parties—Larry Freeman, Redick Freeman, and Rachel Freeman—file a notice of appearance on behalf of these parties within 10 days of the date of this letter, Larry Freeman, Redick Freeman, and Rachel Freeman will be dismissed from this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Larry Freeman, Redick Freeman, and Rachel Freeman did not file a response to this

letter. Accordingly, they are dismissed from this appeal.

Having disposed of the non-moving parties, the “Agreed Motion to Dismiss

Appeal with Prejudice” is granted. Costs of appeal are taxed against the party

incurring same. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Appellee’s supplemental motion to

dismiss, filed on January 8, 2025, is dismissed as moot.

Nathaniel Freeman, Jr., et al. v. Brenda M. Freeman-Heslip Page 2

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 30, 2025 [CV06]

Nathaniel Freeman, Jr., et al. v. Brenda M. Freeman-Heslip Page 3