What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not pay required appellate fees or arrange payment for the clerk's record despite repeated warnings.

Who is affected by this decision?

Woodforest National Bank (the appellant) is affected because its appeal was dismissed; the appellees (Relianse Group, Haresh Surti, and Anthony Iannarelli) have the district court's judgment left intact unless further action is taken.

What happens next for the appellant?

The appellant may consider seeking reinstatement or other relief if permitted by the rules, but the dismissal remains in effect unless a successful motion to reinstate or other authorized remedy is filed.

On what grounds was the appeal dismissed?

The dismissal was based on the appellant's failure to pay the filing fee and failure to pay or arrange payment for the clerk's record after receiving invoices and court warnings under the appellate rules.

Woodforest National Bank v. Relianse Group, LLC, Haresh Surti, and Anthony Iannarelli

Docket 09-26-00017-CV

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

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 09-26-00017-CV

Appeal from a final judgment in Montgomery County district court (trial cause no. 24-09-15014)

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals dismissed Woodforest National Bank's appeal from a final judgment because the bank failed to pay required filing fees and failed to arrange or pay for the clerk's record. The court repeatedly notified the appellant, sent invoices and a certified bill of costs, and warned the appeal would be dismissed if fees were not paid or arrangements made. The appellant did not respond or show indigency, so the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under the applicable appellate rules.

Issues Decided

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to pay the required filing fee.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk's record.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on its appellate rules allowing dismissal when an appellant fails to timely pay required fees or arrange payment for the clerk's record. The clerk issued invoices and the court repeatedly notified the appellant and warned dismissal would follow absent payment or proof of indigency. Because the appellant neither paid nor demonstrated arrangements or need for more time, dismissal was appropriate.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTex. R. App. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(c), 43.2(f)

Parties

Appellant: Woodforest National Bank
Appellee: Relianse Group, LLC
Appellee: Haresh Surti
Appellee: Anthony Iannarelli
Judge: Per Curiam (Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.)

Key Dates

Final judgment signed: 2025-10-16
Notice of appeal filed: 2026-01-09
Court warning letter re: fees: 2026-02-12
District clerk notified court re: clerk's record: 2026-02-17
Opinion delivered / dismissal date: 2026-04-30
Opinion submitted: 2026-04-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel immediately
An attorney can advise whether a motion to reinstate or other relief is available and prepare any required filings quickly, if permitted by the rules and timelines.
2
Review appellate rules and deadlines
Determine statutory or rule-based deadlines for motions to reinstate, motions for extension, or other remedies and act promptly to preserve rights.
3
Prepare supporting documentation
If seeking reinstatement, gather proof of payment, proof of attempted payment arrangements, or proof of indigency to present to the court as required.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not pay required appellate fees or arrange payment for the clerk's record despite repeated warnings.
Who is affected by this decision?: Woodforest National Bank (the appellant) is affected because its appeal was dismissed; the appellees (Relianse Group, Haresh Surti, and Anthony Iannarelli) have the district court's judgment left intact unless further action is taken.
What happens next for the appellant?: The appellant may consider seeking reinstatement or other relief if permitted by the rules, but the dismissal remains in effect unless a successful motion to reinstate or other authorized remedy is filed.
On what grounds was the appeal dismissed?: The dismissal was based on the appellant's failure to pay the filing fee and failure to pay or arrange payment for the clerk's record after receiving invoices and court warnings under the appellate rules.

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. 09-26-00017-CV
__________________

WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK, Appellant

RELIANSE GROUP, LLC, HARESH SURTI, AND ANTHONY
IANNARELLI, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 457th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-09-15014
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 9, 2026, Woodforest National Bank filed a notice of appeal from

a final judgment signed on October 16, 2025. Upon receiving the notice of appeal

from Appellant, the Clerk of the Court issued an invoice for the filing fee for the

appeal. By letter dated February 12, 2026, we notified the parties that Appellant had

not paid the filing fee as directed in our letter and invoice previously forwarded to

Appellant. A Certified Bill of Costs for the filing fee was enclosed and provided to

1
Appellant. We warned Appellant in our letter dated February 12, 2026, that unless

the filing fee was paid, the appeal would be dismissed without further notice on any

date after Monday, February 23, 2026. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). As of this date,

Appellant has failed to pay the filing fee as directed by this Court.

On February 17, 2026, the District Clerk notified the Court that Appellant had

failed to pay or to make the arrangements necessary for the District Clerk to prepare

the clerk’s record. We notified the parties that Appellant had not established indigent

status, and that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to Appellant’s failure to pay

or to arrange to pay the fee required to prepare the clerk’s record. We warned

Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless

Appellant established that it had made the arrangements required to pay the fee or

that it needed more time to do so. See id. 37.3(b). After the Clerk of this Court sent

the parties a letter warning of the consequences of a failure to take the action

necessary to file the clerk’s record, the Court did not receive a response.

Appellant has not paid the filing fee for the appeal, nor has Appellant

explained why it has not paid the fee for the clerk’s record; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 5, 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

2
APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 29, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 30, 2026

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