William L. Brite v. Wendee Lynn Froechtenicht and Melanie Dawn Thomas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00311-CV

__________________

WILLIAM L. BRITE, Appellant V.

WENDEE LYNN FROECHTENICHT AND MELANIE DAWN THOMAS, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 25-34865

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 27, 2026, William L. Brite, a self-represented party, filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s judgment in Trial Cause Number 25-34865, dated April 13, 2026. 1 Brite’s name appears on the notice of appeal, but he did not comply with Rule 9.1(c)(1):

1 Brite filed the Notice of Appeal as an individual. We note that the style of the case in the trial court appears to be William L. Brite, Individually and as Independent Executor v. Wendee Lynn Froechtenicht and Melanie Dawn Thomas.

2

(c) Electronic Signatures. A document that is electronically served, filed, or issued by a court or clerk is considered signed if the document includes: (1) a “/s/” and name typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear, unless the document is notarized or sworn; or (2) an electronic image or scanned image of the signature.

Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(c)(1); see also In re Downs, No. 06-25-00127-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 10044, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana—Dec. 23, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“The signature requirement is a matter of the power of the courts to hear a case.”).

On July 27, 2026, we received Brite’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. By letter dated July 28, 2026, we notified the parties that it appears the notice of appeal was filed late but within the extension of time permitted by Rule 26.3. We notified Appellant that his motion for extension of time was “Received” but not filed because the motion was not signed as required by Rule 9.1(c)(1). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(c)(1). We directed Appellant to include a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the motion for extension if the motion was not filed within 15 days of the original due date for the notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). And we notified Appellant failure to establish timely

We note that generally an executor cannot appear pro se in a representative capacity. Steele v. McDonald, 202 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.); but see Suday v. Suday, 716 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2025) (an executor may act pro se where the executor is the sole beneficiary of the estate and there are no creditors).

3

filing of a notice of appeal may result in the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We note that the defects in the documents we have received from Brite can be cured by amendment and once amended would relate back to the date of the original, non-compliant or defective document. See Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex.1991).

That said, Appellant has not responded to the notice issued by the Clerk.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). If Appellant chooses to file a motion for rehearing, it must be signed and timely filed. See id. 9.1, 49.1, 49.9.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 26, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.