IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00182-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

LLOYD GRIFFITH THOMAS AND

BONNIE ALLEN THOMAS

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-D202000937

DISSENT

The Court purports to grant Bonnie Allen Thomas’s motion to dismiss. But the 

Court’s judgment makes it clear that the Court is not granting Bonnie’s motion. The 

Court is apparently granting its own motion without notice or opportunity for the parties 

to be heard thereon and will potentially create chaos about the basis for and scope of the 

Court’s judgment. 

This is not Bonnie’s first trip to this Court. Judges and prosecutors across Texas 

will understand when I attribute to her the characteristics of a litigant making Republic 

of Texas type arguments. She is acting as her own attorney which is evident from the 

handwritten five-page document that was addressed to this Court’s Clerk.
In the Matter of the Marriage of Thomas Page 2

The document was not addressed to the Court. The document was not labeled as 

a motion. The document was not served. The filing fee for filing a motion was not paid. 

But the document does request relief which only the Court can give; thus, I agree with 

the Court’s characterization of the document as a motion.

The motion could, I contend, best be described as a general “venting” from Bonnie. 

The venting is about what she characterizes as “a series of erroneous errors by the 18th 

District Court of Johnson County.” Some would characterize it as a “rant.” But we cannot 

twist a pro se litigant’s “rant” into something it is not merely because of the problem and 

delay of dealing with a difficult situation or litigant. 

Let us look at what the Court relies upon to support the conclusion that Bonnie 

“repeatedly asks that we dismiss this appeal.” 

First, in the opening sentence, after she has referenced the proceeding in the trial 

court as well as the proceeding in the appellate court by the respective docket numbers,

she “... ask[s] for both cases dismissed pro nunc tunc or recissioned” [sic]. She goes on to 

argue that the matter had already been decided at an earlier date by another court. In 

making that argument, after arguing that her former husband’s appeal had been 

untimely, she asserts, “I filed a ‘demand for dismissal and challenge to jurisdiction and 

standing’ Lloyd [former husband] had a duty to then ‘prove’ standing and 

jurisdiction....” This second reference to dismissal was not about the current proceeding 

but rather was about an earlier proceeding or this proceeding at an earlier stage.

Bonnie goes on to argue (“rant”) about being divested of her separate property 

rights and a violation of her due process rights. In making these arguments, she argues 
In the Matter of the Marriage of Thomas Page 3

that this Court does not have jurisdiction of this matter.1

Bonnie’s second reference to a dismissal comes towards the end of the motion. 

After setting out some of her grievances about the process and against her former 

husband’s current treatment of her, she provides the following sentence:

I am taking this issue to the Texas Supreme Court and ask you to dismiss 

the cause #10-23-00182-CV as lacking standing and jurisdiction and a 

contract with me.

After then asserting a “Notice of Claim to Property,” she makes a third statement that 

might could be construed as a request for a dismissal. She states, “I ask for full settlement 

and closure of this case.”

And these are the statements in the letter which the Court “construes” as making 

her motion nothing more than a garden variety motion to dismiss the appeal. I disagree 

with the Court’s characterization. 

In the first instance, she seeks more than a dismissal of the appeal. Bonnie wants 

the “case” dismissed, both the appeal and the trial court proceeding. Moreover, she 

wants it dismissed for a reason; asserting a legal basis upon which we are required to 

dismiss it. Specifically, she asserts that her former husband has no standing to pursue 

his claims in the 18th District Court and that we have no jurisdiction of the appeal.

The Court is not dismissing the case. Even if there was a basis to dismiss the trial 

court proceeding as requested, that is not what the Court is doing. All the Court is 

dismissing is the appeal, thus leaving the trial court’s judgment in place—which is the 

1 It appears from the content of the motion that a previous appeal had been transferred to the Sixth Court 

of Appeals under a workload equalization order.
In the Matter of the Marriage of Thomas Page 4

opposite of what Bonnie seeks via her “motion.” And the Court is certainly not 

dismissing the appeal upon a determination that Lloyd has no standing or that we do not 

have jurisdiction of this appeal.

Finding no basis upon which to “grant” the motion to dismiss the case, as Bonnie 

asks us to do, much less the appeal, as the Court purports to do, I would deny the motion 

and move on to the other issues to be addressed to move this appeal forward.2

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Dissent delivered and filed October 12, 2023

2 The Clerk notified Bonnie that because she had not paid the filing fee nor had she filed a docketing 

statement, the appeal would be dismissed under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b), (c) and 44.3. 

We should focus our efforts on those issues.