Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Natalie Anderson v. Kyle Anderson, as Independent of the Estate of John William Anderson III, and Kyle Anderson, Individually

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 09-25-00349-CV
• Nature of Suit: Miscellaneous/other civil

• Disposition: Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Dismissed

Lead Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

---

NO. 09-25-00349-CV

---

NATALIE ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

KYLE ANDERSON, AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE
OF JOHN WILLIAM ANDERSON III, DECEASED, AND KYLE
ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees

---

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-33538

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 22, 2025, Natalie Anderson filed a notice of appeal from a final

judgment signed on August 21, 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 November 6, 2025, 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 November 6, 2025, that unless

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

date after Friday, November 21, 2025. 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 December 19, 2025, the County Clerk notified the Court that Appellant

had failed to pay or to make the arrangements necessary for the County 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 she had made the arrangements required to pay the fee or

that she 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 she explained why

she 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).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM
Submitted on March 11, 2026
Opinion Delivered March 12, 2026
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
2