Leo Roger Dugas v. Ryan Edward Reuter
Docket 09-25-00121-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 09-25-00121-CV
Appeal from grant of summary judgment in a quiet-title action
Summary
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas dismissed Leo Roger Dugas’s appeal of a trial-court take-nothing judgment in a quiet-title suit against Ryan Edward Reuter. Dugas filed an initial brief that lacked legal authority and a corrected brief that failed to comply with numerous appellate rules. After warning and allowing an opportunity to amend, the court determined Dugas did not file a proper brief and proceeded on the clerk’s record, then dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The court therefore did not reach the merits of the underlying title dispute.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellant complied with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in filing a proper appellate brief
- Whether the court should dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when a litigant fails to file a compliant brief after warning
Court's Reasoning
The court determined Dugas’s initial brief lacked required legal authorities and his amended brief omitted numerous mandatory components of Rule 38.1. After warning and a chance to cure, the court still found noncompliance and, under the appellate rules that permit dismissal when a party fails to prosecute or file a proper brief, dismissed the appeal. Because the dismissal was procedural, the court did not address the merits of the underlying summary judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 38.1
- Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 38.8(a)(1)
- Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42.3(b)
Parties
- Appellant
- Leo Roger Dugas
- Appellee
- Ryan Edward Reuter
- Judge
- Golemon (C.J.)
- Judge
- Johnson (J.)
- Judge
- Chambers (J.)
Key Dates
- Order granting motion to strike and ordering amended brief
- 2025-09-25
- Clerk notice submission on clerk's record
- 2026-02-18
- Submission on clerk's record
- 2026-03-11
- Opinion delivered
- 2026-04-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult an attorney promptly
An attorney can assess whether a timely motion for rehearing, motion for reinstatement, or other relief is available and advise on preserving or pursuing rights concerning the underlying title dispute.
- 2
Consider filing a motion for rehearing or reinstatement
If there is a valid reason for the briefing defects (for example, excusable neglect), a timely motion may be filed in the Court of Appeals seeking relief from the dismissal.
- 3
Evaluate options at the trial court
If appellate relief is not available, consult counsel about whether any post-judgment trial-court motions (e.g., to vacate the summary judgment) might be appropriate based on the underlying record.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to file a proper appellate brief after being given an opportunity to correct it.
- Does this decision resolve who owns the property?
- No. The court dismissed the appeal for procedural reasons and did not rule on the underlying quiet-title merits; the trial court's take-nothing judgment remains in place.
- Who is affected by this dismissal?
- Primarily the appellant, Leo Roger Dugas, because his challenge to the trial-court judgment is ended unless he obtains further relief; the appellee, Ryan Edward Reuter, benefits by retaining the trial-court judgment.
- Can this dismissal be appealed or undone?
- A dismissed appeal is generally final, but the appellant might seek rehearing in the Court of Appeals or potentially file a motion for reinstatement if there is a valid procedural excuse; these options are time-sensitive and require legal counsel.
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
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00121-CV
__________________
LEO ROGER DUGAS, Appellant
V.
RYAN EDWARD REUTER, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24DC-CV-00535
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Leo Roger Dugas filed a Suit to Quiet Title against Ryan Edward
Reuter regarding certain real property located in Liberty County, Texas. The trial
court denied Dugas’s motion for summary judgment and granted Reuter’s motion
for summary judgment, finding that Reuter has superior title and rendering a take-
nothing judgment against Dugas. Dugas perfected an appeal. Acting pro se, Dugas
1
filed a brief that presented a single issue—“whether the trial court reviewed
Appellant’s exhibits incorrectly by failing to rule in his favor”—but cited no legal
authorities to support his issue.
On September 25, 2025, we granted Appellee Ryan Edward Reuter’s Motion
to Stike Appellant’s Brief. We ordered Dugas to file a compliant amended brief. See
Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). We warned Appellant that unless he timely filed an amended
brief that complies with Rule 38.1, the Court would proceed as if Appellant failed to
file a brief and that his appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution.
We received an amended Appellant’s Brief, but the brief lacks the identity of
the Appellee and Appellee’s counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a
statement of the case, a statement regarding oral argument, issues presented, a
statement of facts, a summary of the argument, an argument, a prayer, and an
appendix. See id. 38.1.
On February 18, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified the parties that the Court
had reviewed Appellant’s Amended Brief and determined that the brief fails to
comply with Rule 38.1. The Clerk notified the parties that the appeal would be
submitted on the clerk’s record alone without oral argument on March 11, 2026. See
id. 39.8. Because Dugas has not filed a brief in his appeal addressing error for
2
appellate review, we dismiss Dugas’s appeal for want of prosecution. See id.
38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on March 11, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 16, 2026
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
3