CROSSOVER: Omitted Family-Law Appellant May Join a Timely Appeal Before the Opening Brief Under Rule 25.1(g)

Kyle Bartholomew, Shannon Ramirez, and Richard Thompson v. William Bates, 03-26-00820-CV, October 30, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Hays County

Synopsis

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(g) permits an amended notice of appeal filed before the appellants’ brief to add an omitted appellant and correct an erroneous restricted-appeal designation without first obtaining leave of court. The amendment remains subject to a motion to strike for cause, but absent such a motion, the amended notice may proceed as a regular appeal and support consolidation and dismissal of a duplicative appellate proceeding.

Relevance to Family Law

This procedural holding applies directly to multi-party divorce, custody, and property cases. A timely notice filed by one party may place the entire judgment and all parties within the appellate court’s jurisdiction, while Rule 25.1(g) provides a potential mechanism for adding another appellant omitted from the original notice before the opening brief is filed. The issue may arise when spouses, intervenors, grandparents, conservators, receivers, trustees, or entities holding marital property share an appellate objective but are not all named in the first notice of appeal.

The timing rule is especially important in accelerated family-law appeals, including appeals from temporary injunctions, certification orders, or other appealable interlocutory rulings. Although Rule 25.1(g) is construed liberally, counsel should not treat amendment as a substitute for filing a complete and timely notice. An opposing party may move to strike an amendment for cause, and amendments sought after the opening brief require leave of court.

Family Law Crossover

Rule 25.1(g) establishes a procedural correction mechanism rather than a separate method for perfecting an untimely appeal. When a party timely perfects an appeal, an amended notice filed in the appellate court before the appellant’s brief may correct a defect or omission in the earlier notice. Under this decision, the permissible correction can include naming an additional appellant and replacing an incorrect restricted-appeal designation with a regular-appeal designation.

In a family-law matter, the mechanism could apply when one parent files a timely notice from a custody order but another aligned party—such as an intervening grandparent or possessory conservator—is inadvertently omitted. It could also arise in a divorce involving business entities, trusts, receivers, or third parties whose property interests were adjudicated in the same decree. Before the opening brief, an amended or joint notice may add the omitted appellant without leave, although any affected party retains the right to seek to strike the amendment for cause. After the opening brief is filed, amendment is available only with the appellate court’s permission and on the terms the court prescribes.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Kyle Bartholomew, Shannon Ramirez, and Richard Thompson jointly challenged the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and sought no-evidence summary judgment. After a July 6, 2026 hearing, the trial court orally denied their plea to the jurisdiction and summary-judgment motion. Bartholomew and Ramirez filed a notice of appeal on July 15, and the trial court signed the written interlocutory order on July 23. The Third Court of Appeals docketed their appeal as cause number 03-26-00672-CV.

Thompson was not named as an appellant in that notice. On September 1, he filed a separate document captioned “Notice of Restricted Appeal” from the same order, resulting in a second appellate proceeding, cause number 03-26-00820-CV.

Thompson later sought leave in the first appeal to file an amended or joint notice adding himself as an appellant. He explained that the restricted-appeal designation was incorrect because he had appeared through counsel at the hearing that produced the challenged order. He requested that the court treat his appeal as an ordinary appeal joined with the appeal already perfected by Bartholomew and Ramirez.

Thompson attached a proposed amended and joint notice of appeal to his September 18 motion. Bartholomew and Ramirez joined the proposed notice, and their opening brief had not yet been filed. The appellee did not oppose the requested relief or move to strike the amended notice.

Issues Decided

• Whether Rule 25.1(g) permits an amended notice of appeal to add an appellant omitted from an earlier, timely notice.
• Whether an appellant must obtain leave of court when the amended notice is filed before the appellants’ opening brief.
• Whether the amended notice could correct the erroneous characterization of Thompson’s appeal as a restricted appeal.
• Whether the separate appeal should be consolidated with the previously perfected appeal and then dismissed as a duplicative proceeding.

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(g). An amended notice correcting a defect or omission in an earlier notice may be filed in the appellate court at any time before the appellant’s brief is filed. The amendment is subject to being struck for cause on the motion of an affected party. After the appellant’s brief is filed, amendment requires leave of court and is subject to any terms the court imposes.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(b). The court relied on the principle that the timely filing of a notice of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction over all parties to the trial court’s judgment or appealable order.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30. A restricted appeal generally requires that the appellant did not participate—either personally or through counsel—in the hearing that resulted in the complained-of judgment. Because Thompson appeared through counsel at the relevant hearing, the restricted-appeal designation did not fit the procedural record.

St. Mina Auto Sales, Inc. v. Al-Muasher, 481 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). St. Mina construed Rules 25.1(b) and 25.1(g) to allow an amended notice to add another appellant. The decision emphasized that Rule 25.1(g) is not limited to amendments filed by the original appellant and that requests by later-added appellants should be addressed procedurally, with consideration of the equities and circumstances.

Cortez v. Brown, No. 03-17-00365-CV, 2019 WL 961672 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 28, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Cortez illustrated the importance of the opening-brief deadline. There, the court denied a request to add an appellant’s attorney when the amendment was not sought until after the appellant filed the brief.

Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners ex rel. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Park Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The Texas Supreme Court held that an insurer should have been allowed to amend a notice when it made a bona fide attempt to appeal by filing in the insured’s name and identifying its interest in the docketing statement and other appellate filings.

Application

The Third Court began with the timing language of Rule 25.1(g). Thompson tendered the proposed amended and joint notice on September 18, before Bartholomew and Ramirez filed their opening brief. Because the amendment preceded the brief, the rule did not require leave of court. The filing of a motion requesting leave did not create a leave requirement that the rule itself did not impose.

The court then treated Thompson’s omission from the first notice as the type of defect or omission that Rule 25.1(g) permits an amended notice to correct. Relying on St. Mina, the court concluded that an amendment is not limited to correcting clerical details about an already-named appellant. It may also name an additional appellant where a timely appeal has already invoked the appellate court’s jurisdiction and the amendment is filed within Rule 25.1(g)’s pre-brief window.

The same amended notice could correct the characterization of Thompson’s filing as a restricted appeal. Thompson had appeared through counsel at the hearing that resulted in the challenged order, making a restricted appeal inappropriate under Rule 30. The court therefore deemed the amended notice to assert a regular appeal rather than a restricted appeal.

Finally, Rule 25.1(g) expressly makes a pre-brief amendment subject to a motion to strike for cause. No such motion was filed. The court therefore deemed the amended and joint notice filed as of September 18, consolidated the records and filings from the two proceedings, and directed that the appeal continue under the first-filed cause number.

Holding

Rule 25.1(g) permitted Thompson to file an amended notice adding himself as an appellant before Bartholomew and Ramirez filed their opening brief. Because the amendment was filed during the rule’s pre-brief period, Thompson was not required to obtain leave of court.

The amended notice also permissibly corrected the erroneous restricted-appeal designation. Thompson’s participation through counsel at the underlying hearing meant that the appeal should proceed as a regular appeal rather than under Rule 30.

Because no affected party moved to strike the amendment for cause, the court deemed the amended and joint notice filed as of September 18, 2026. It consolidated cause number 03-26-00820-CV into cause number 03-26-00672-CV, dismissed the duplicative appeal, and restyled the remaining appeal to include Bartholomew, Ramirez, and Thompson as appellants.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, the decision creates a meaningful but time-sensitive route for correcting an incomplete notice of appeal.

Multi-party conservatorship cases. If a notice names one parent but omits an intervenor, grandparent, or other conservator who also seeks appellate relief, an amended notice may add that party before the opening brief. Counsel should explain the omitted party’s interest, identify the timely original notice, and file the amendment promptly.

Property and entity disputes in divorce. Divorce decrees may adjudicate interests involving closely held entities, trusts, receivers, or third-party transferees. If an affected person or entity intended to appeal but was omitted from the original notice, Rule 25.1(g) may permit correction during the pre-brief period.

Multiple represented parties. When several parties challenged the same ruling below but have separate counsel on appeal, each appellate lawyer should verify that the notice names the correct clients. Participation in the trial court does not, by itself, make a person an appellant or establish that the person seeks alteration of the order.

Incorrect appeal designation. Counsel should distinguish among a regular appeal, accelerated appeal, and restricted appeal. A party who participated in the dispositive hearing ordinarily cannot satisfy Rule 30’s nonparticipation requirement. This case confirms that a mistaken restricted-appeal label may be corrected through a timely amended notice.

Control of the opening-brief date. The filing of the opening brief changes the applicable standard. Before the brief, an amended notice correcting a defect or omission may be filed without leave. After the brief, leave is mandatory. If an omitted appellant is discovered, counsel should resolve the notice issue before filing the brief—even if the brief is otherwise ready.

Potential motion to strike. A pre-brief amendment is not categorically immune from challenge. An affected party may move to strike for cause. The amending party should therefore document the relationship between the omitted appellant and the existing appeal, the timing of the correction, the absence of unfair prejudice, and any prior filings reflecting a bona fide intent to appeal.

Checklists

Audit the Notice of Appeal

• Confirm the complete style and trial-court cause number.
• Identify every client seeking to alter the judgment or appealable order.
• Verify that each intended appellant is expressly named.
• Confirm that the notice identifies the correct judgment or interlocutory order.
• Determine whether the appeal is regular, accelerated, or restricted.
• Check whether any party appeared personally or through counsel at the dispositive hearing.
• Compare the notice against the final decree, docket sheet, and attorney-client engagement structure.
• Calendar all appellate deadlines independently for each potentially affected party.

Add an Omitted Appellant Before Briefing

• Locate the timely original notice of appeal.
• Confirm that the opening appellants’ brief has not been filed.
• Prepare an amended or joint notice under Rule 25.1(g).
• Identify the omitted appellant expressly.
• Correct any inaccurate appeal designation.
• Identify the judgment or order being appealed with precision.
• Obtain the agreement or joinder of the original appellants when available.
• File the amended notice in the appellate court.
• Serve all parties and counsel.
• Update the appellate style, docketing statement, certificate of interested parties, and service list as necessary.
• Address any duplicate appellate cause number through a motion to consolidate or dismiss.

Proceed After the Opening Brief Has Been Filed

• Do not assume amendment remains available as of right.
• File a motion for leave under Rule 25.1(g).
• Attach the proposed amended notice.
• Explain the omission and the timing of its discovery.
• Identify prior filings demonstrating the omitted party’s intent or interest in appealing.
• Address prejudice, briefing consequences, and any requested schedule adjustment.
• Propose reasonable terms for allowing the amendment.
• Determine whether supplemental briefing will be necessary.

Evaluate a Motion to Strike for Cause

• Determine whether the amendment corrects a defect or omission in an earlier notice.
• Examine whether a timely appeal already invoked appellate jurisdiction.
• Identify the precise procedural or substantive prejudice allegedly caused by the amendment.
• Review whether the added appellant previously manifested an intent to appeal.
• Compare the timing and circumstances with St. Mina, Cortez, and Warwick Towers.
• Distinguish curable notice defects from an effort to create appellate jurisdiction where no timely appeal exists.
• Request tailored relief if the concern can be addressed through briefing deadlines or record supplementation.

Prevent Duplicate Appeals

• Search the appellate docket for related notices arising from the same order.
• Coordinate among trial and appellate counsel before filing separate notices.
• Use an amended or joint notice when Rule 25.1(g) permits.
• Move to consolidate related appellate proceedings promptly.
• Identify which cause number should remain active.
• Confirm that all records, motions, and briefs are transferred to the surviving cause.
• Verify the final appellate style after consolidation.

Citation

Bartholomew, Ramirez, and Thompson v. Bates, Nos. 03-26-00672-CV & 03-26-00820-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~9d723d51-a88b-4a34-a6b9-123f8952a653~~