Court Opinion

ID: 9915682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 11:11:20.016677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:24.689525
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00321-CV

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                          TYLER, TEXAS

DIANNE L. WEAVER,                                 §      APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT

V.                                                §      COUNTY COURT

HOLLY LAKE RANCH
ASSOCIATION, INC.,                                §      WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                           PER CURIAM

       Philip J. Emerson, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a July 26, 2023, judgment
and a September 15, 2023, writ of possession. However, Dianne Lee Weaver and Holly Lake
Ranch Association, Inc., not Emerson, are parties to this proceeding. On December 20, 2023,
this Court notified Emerson that the notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court,
namely, the appellant is not a party to the underlying proceeding and lacks standing. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 37.2. We further notified Emerson that the appeal would be dismissed unless the
information was amended on or before January 2 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. Emerson
filed various motions, but none establish the jurisdiction of this Court.
       The notice of appeal in this case purports to be filed on Weaver’s behalf. 1 Because
Emerson is not a member of the state bar and has not otherwise received special permission to
practice law on Weaver’s behalf, he lacked the authority to sign and file a notice of appeal in this
case. Hunter v. Liberty Mutual Ins., No. 01-19-00418-CV, 2020 WL 425295, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 28, 2020, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“Under Texas
law, if a person is not a member of the state bar or otherwise granted special permission, that

       1
           Emerson has been declared vexatious.
person may not practice law on behalf of another person—even if the two persons are related or
married”); see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 81.102(a) (West 2023); see also Unauthorized Practice
of Law Committee v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 261 S.W.3d 24, 29 (Tex. 2008) (“To
practice law in Texas, one must either be licensed by the Court or have special permission”).
         Because Weaver was not represented by counsel, she was required to sign any document
filed. See TEX R. APP. P. 9.1(b) (Unrepresented parties must sign any document the party files
and give the party’s mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any and email address).
Weaver did not sign the notice of appeal nor include the required information. Thus, no notice
of appeal was filed as to her. See Premier Assoc., Inc. v. Louetta Shopping Ctr. Houston, L.P.,
No 01-12-00369-CV, 2012 WL 4243802 at *1 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 20, 2012, no
pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All
pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered January 3, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          2
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                          JANUARY 3, 2024

                                        NO. 12-23-00321-CV

                               DIANNE L. WEAVER,
                                    Appellant
                                       V.
                       HOLLY LAKE RANCH ASSOCIATION, INC.,
                                    Appellee

                                   Appeal from the County Court
                         of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. E23-016-3)

                   THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and
that the appeal should be dismissed.
                   It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.

                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.