Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Kevin Williams v. Lone Ranger Capital Investment LLC and Henry Hedman, Blue Starfish Construction LLC

Docket 01-26-00025-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Texas
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type
Lead Opinion
Case type
Civil
Disposition
Dismissed
Docket
01-26-00025-CV

Appeal from a judgment signed December 8, 2025 in a civil case (Trial Court Case No. 2018-51792) in the 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Summary

The Texas First District Court of Appeals dismissed Kevin Williams's appeal from a December 8, 2025 judgment because he neither paid required appellate fees nor proved indigence for those costs, and he failed to adequately respond after being notified that the appeal was subject to dismissal. The court cited the applicable Texas rules and statutes governing appellate fees and procedure and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The decision is a procedural dismissal for failure to comply with fee and response requirements, not a ruling on the merits of the underlying judgment.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the appellant paid required appellate fees or established indigence for appellate costs
  • Whether the appellant adequately responded after notification that the appeal was subject to dismissal

Court's Reasoning

The court applied Texas appellate rules and statutes that require either payment of fees or a showing of indigence to proceed on appeal. The appellant received notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to comply but did not adequately respond. Because the procedural requirements were not satisfied, the court dismissed the appeal and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

Authorities Cited

  • Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1, 42.3(b), 42.3(c), 43.2(f)
  • Texas Government Code (fee and indigence provisions)TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a)
  • Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court ...Misc. Docket No.24-9047 (Tex. July 26, 2024)

Parties

Appellant
Kevin Williams
Appellee
Lone Ranger Capital Investment, LLC
Appellee
Henry Hedman
Appellee
Blue Starfish Construction LLC
Judge
Per Curiam (Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil)

Key Dates

Judgment signed
2025-12-08
Notice appellant appealed subject to dismissal
2026-01-30
Opinion issued
2026-04-16

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consult counsel immediately

    An affected party, particularly the appellant, should consult an attorney right away to evaluate options, deadlines for seeking reinstatement, or other remedies under Texas appellate rules.

  2. 2

    Consider motion to reinstate or rehearing

    If eligible, the appellant may ask the appellate court to reinstate the appeal or file a motion for rehearing, explaining reasons for nonpayment or providing proof of indigence, and must act quickly to meet any procedural deadlines.

  3. 3

    Comply with trial-court judgment

    Unless the appeal is reinstated or another stay is obtained, parties should prepare to comply with or enforce the underlying trial-court judgment and pursue any available collateral relief.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this dismissal mean?
The appeals court ended the appeal because the appellant did not pay required fees or prove he could not pay, and he failed to respond properly to the court's notice. The court did not address the substantive merits of the underlying judgment.
Who is affected by this decision?
Kevin Williams, as the appellant, is affected because his appeal was dismissed; the appellees' underlying judgment remains in place.
What happens to pending motions in the appeal?
The court dismissed any pending motions as moot when it dismissed the appeal.
Can this dismissal be challenged?
A party may seek reinstatement or file a motion for rehearing or other appropriate relief in accordance with the rules, but the opinion did not address further appellate remedies; consult an attorney promptly about deadlines and options.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
Opinion issued April 16, 2026




                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-26-00025-CV
                            ———————————
                         KEVIN WILLIAMS, Appellant
                                         V.
LONE RANGER CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC, HENRY HEDMAN, AND
        BLUE STARFISH CONSTRUCTION LLC, Appellees


                    On Appeal from the 334th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 2018-51792


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Kevin Williams is attempting to appeal from a judgment signed on

December 8, 2025. Appellant has neither paid the required fees nor established

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a); Order Regarding Fees
Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before

the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, and in the Business Court, Misc.

Docket No.24-9047 (Tex. July 26, 2024), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1)

(listing fees in courts of appeals). After being notified on January 30, 2026 that this

appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c).

      Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). Any

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.




                                          2