Anthony Hutson v. Bertha L. Nelson-Moss; George Nelson, Jr.; Yolanda Nelson; Tony Nelson; Corey Nelson; Sharon V. Allen; Latanya D. McKelvey; Pier A. Mouton; William F. Clemmons; Shanta L. Nelson; Leigh A. Nelson; Timothy N. Dibbles; and Tamela Courtney Dibbles

No. 03-26-00360-CV · Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin · May 15, 2026 · No. 03-26-00360-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Anthony Hutson's appeal for want of prosecution because the amended notice of appeal was filed by a nonparty, nonattorney acting in a representative capacity. The court held that a person may appear pro se only on their own behalf and that nonattorneys may not file pleadings or other litigation documents for another person. The dismissal was issued under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and (c).

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin
Writing for the Court
Gisela D. Triana, Justice; Justice Kelly; Justice Ellis
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin
Decision date
May 15, 2026
Docket number
03-26-00360-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the 20th District Court of Milam County determining interests, finding heir property, and ordering partition by sale. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal after no attorney or party properly filed an amended notice of appeal.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion; no reporter citation appears in the provided text.
Parties
Anthony Hutson v. Bertha L. Nelson-Moss, George Nelson, Jr., Yolanda Nelson, Tony Nelson, Corey Nelson, Sharon V. Allen, Latanya D. McKelvey, Pier A. Mouton, William F. Clemmons, Shanta L. Nelson, Leigh A. Nelson, Timothy N. Dibbles, Tamela Courtney Dibbles
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate procedurecivil procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

appellate procedurecivil procedureunauthorized practice of law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a nonattorney and nonparty may file an appellate pleading on behalf of another individual in a pro se representative capacity.
  2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed when no attorney or the appellant personally files a proper amended notice of appeal after being directed to do so.

Holdings

  1. An individual may appear pro se only to litigate that individual’s own rights and may not appear pro se in a representative capacity on behalf of another person.
  2. The appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution because neither Hutson nor an attorney representing him filed an amended notice of appeal.

Key quotations

Therefore, because an individual acting on behalf of another individual may not appear pro se in a representative capacity, and no attorney has filed an amended notice of appeal on behalf of Anthony Hutson, we dismiss this appeal. (2)

Factual background

The underlying case involved an order determining interests, finding heir property, and ordering partition by sale under Chapter 23A of the Texas Property Code. Anthony Hutson attempted to appeal through O’Neal Williams, described as his pro se representative. After the appellate court required a proper amended notice of appeal, Olivia Hutson filed one even though she was not a party and was not an attorney.

Procedural history

Anthony Hutson, through his pro se representative O’Neal Williams, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s partition order. The court of appeals advised that a nonparty could not represent Hutson pro se in a representative capacity and required an amended notice filed by either an attorney or Hutson himself. Olivia Hutson, who was neither a party nor an attorney, filed the amended notice. Because no attorney filed an amended notice on Hutson’s behalf, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…