Reginald Munoz v. Caden York
Docket 02-26-00122-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 02-26-00122-CV
Appeal from the 89th District Court of Wichita County, Texas (trial court No. DC89-CV2023-2209) dismissed for failure to pay the appellate filing fee.
Summary
The Second District Court of Appeals at Fort Worth dismissed Reginald Munoz’s appeal for failure to pay the required $205 filing fee after being warned twice under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court cited the appellant’s noncompliance with Rule 42.3(c) and related rules, and referenced the Texas Supreme Court’s 2015 fee order. The court ordered Munoz to pay all costs of the appeal and issued a per curiam memorandum opinion dismissing the case on April 23, 2026.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to pay the required appellate filing fee after proper warning under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Whether the appellant is required to pay costs of the appeal following dismissal for nonpayment
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (including Rule 42.3(c)) that permit dismissal when an appellant fails to comply with a court order to pay filing fees. The appellant was timely warned twice and did not pay the $205 fee, so dismissal was authorized. The court also referenced the Texas Supreme Court’s 2015 order establishing appellate fees and concluded that dismissal requires the appellant to bear the appeal costs.
Authorities Cited
- Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c)
- Tex. R. App. P. 44.3
- Supreme Court of Texas, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court... Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015)
Parties
- Appellant
- Reginald Munoz
- Appellee
- Caden York
- Judge
- Per Curiam (Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; Walker, J.)
Key Dates
- First notice to appellant
- 2026-02-25
- Second notice to appellant
- 2026-03-11
- Decision delivered
- 2026-04-23
- Trial court docket number date reference
- 2023-01-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Pay appellate costs
If required to preserve options, Munoz should pay the $205 filing fee and any assessed costs as ordered by the court.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel
Contact an appellate attorney promptly to determine whether a motion for reinstatement, motion for rehearing, or petition for extraordinary relief is available and timely.
- 3
Prepare supporting evidence
Gather proof of payment or reasons for nonpayment (e.g., inability to pay) to support any request for relief or reinstatement.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to pay the required $205 filing fee after being warned.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The appellant, Reginald Munoz, is directly affected; the dismissal ends the appellate review unless further relief is obtained.
- What happens next?
- The appellant must pay all costs of the appeal; to continue the case, the appellant would need to seek any available post-judgment relief such as a motion for rehearing or other extraordinary relief if permitted.
- Why was the fee requirement enforced?
- The court followed the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s fee order, which allow dismissal when an appellant does not pay the required filing fee after notice.
- Can this dismissal be appealed?
- An appeal of a dismissal for nonpayment is unlikely to proceed unless the appellant can show timely payment or a valid excuse and obtain relief such as reinstatement from the court that dismissed the appeal or from the Texas Supreme Court.
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
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00122-CV
___________________________
REGINALD MUNOZ, Appellant
V.
CADEN YORK, Appellee
On Appeal from the 89th District Court
Wichita County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC89-CV2023-2209
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
On February 25, 2026, and March 11, 2026, we notified appellant, in
accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal
unless appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant
has not done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
Because appellant has not complied with a procedural requirement and the
Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015, 1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).
Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Per Curiam
Delivered: April 23, 2026
See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases
1
in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation,
Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
2