William L. Brite v. Wendee Lynn Froechtenicht and Melanie Dawn Thomas

2026-08-27

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to respond to the court's notice regarding procedural defects in the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time, which did not comply with the signature requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

William L. Brite appealed a trial court judgment from the Montgomery County probate court. Brite filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2026, but the document did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requirement that electronically filed documents include either a '/s/' notation with a typed name or an electronic signature image. The court also received a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, which similarly lacked the required signature format.

The court notified Brite that his motion for extension was received but not officially filed due to the signature defect, and that the notice of appeal appeared to be filed late, though possibly within an allowable extension period. The court explained that the defects could be remedied through amendment and that the amended documents would relate back to the original filing date. The court directed Brite to explain the late filing and warned that failure to establish timely filing could result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. When Brite did not respond to the court's notice, the court dismissed the appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Compliance with electronic signature requirements for appellate documents
Timeliness of notice of appeal filing
Effect of failure to cure procedural defects after court notice
Relationship back doctrine for amended documents

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed a trial court judgment from the probate court, but the appeal was subject to jurisdictional defects related to procedural compliance and timeliness of filing.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-26-00311-CV

WILLIAM L. BRITE, Appellant

WENDEE LYNN FROECHTENICHT AND MELANIE DAWN THOMAS,

Appellees

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 25-34865

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 27, 2026, William L. Brite, a self-represented party, filed a Notice of

Appeal from the trial court’s judgment in Trial Cause Number 25-34865, dated April

13, 2026. 1 Brite’s name appears on the notice of appeal, but he did not comply with

Rule 9.1(c)(1):

Brite filed the Notice of Appeal as an individual. We note that the style of the case in the trial court appears to be William L. Brite, Individually and as Independent Executor v. Wendee Lynn Froechtenicht and Melanie Dawn Thomas.

filed, or issued by a court or clerk is considered signed if the document

includes: (1) a “/s/” and name typed in the space where the signature

would otherwise appear, unless the document is notarized or sworn; or

(2) an electronic image or scanned image of the signature.

Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(c)(1); see also In re Downs, No. 06-25-00127-CV, 2025 Tex.

App. LEXIS 10044, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana—Dec. 23, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“The signature requirement is a matter of the power of the

courts to hear a case.”).

On July 27, 2026, we received Brite’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Notice of Appeal. By letter dated July 28, 2026, we notified the parties that it appears

the notice of appeal was filed late but within the extension of time permitted by Rule

26.3. We notified Appellant that his motion for extension of time was “Received”

but not filed because the motion was not signed as required by Rule 9.1(c)(1). See

Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(c)(1). We directed Appellant to include a reasonable explanation

for the late filing of the motion for extension if the motion was not filed within 15

days of the original due date for the notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959

S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). And we notified Appellant failure to establish timely

We note that generally an executor cannot appear pro se in a representative capacity. Steele v. McDonald, 202 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.); but see Suday v. Suday, 716 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2025) (an executor may act pro se where the executor is the sole beneficiary of the estate and there are no creditors).

filing of a notice of appeal may result in the dismissal of the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

We note that the defects in the documents we have received from Brite can be

cured by amendment and once amended would relate back to the date of the original,

non-compliant or defective document. See Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v.

Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex.1991).

That said, Appellant has not responded to the notice issued by the Clerk.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). If Appellant

chooses to file a motion for rehearing, it must be signed and timely filed. See id. 9.1,

49.1, 49.9.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 26, 2026

Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026

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