What is the litigation takeaway from Kacz v. Mathews?

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) provides a reliable "off-ramp" for litigants to voluntarily terminate an accelerated appeal—frequently used in custody or parental termination cases—as long as the motion is filed before the court issues an opinion, making it an essential tool for parties who reach a settlement or pivot strategy mid-appeal.

What is the summary of Kacz v. Mathews?

After initiating an accelerated appeal of a Montgomery County district court order, the appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the case before the appellate court reached a decision on the merits. The Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the request under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), which permits voluntary dismissal when the action does not prevent an opposing party from seeking affirmative relief. Finding the motion procedurally sound and timely, the court granted the dismissal under Rule 43.2(f), effectively concluding the appellate review without altering the underlying trial court ruling.

How can an appellant voluntarily dismiss a civil appeal in the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals?

In Case No. 09-25-00523-CV, Justin Marcus Kacz v. Diyana Mathews, the Ninth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal after the appellant filed an unopposed motion for dismissal. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), an appellate court may dismiss an appeal if the appellant files a motion to dismiss before the court has rendered a decision.

What is the timing requirement for filing a voluntary motion to dismiss an appeal under TRAP 42.1?

An appellant must file their motion to dismiss before the appellate court issues a decision in the case. In Kacz v. Mathews, the court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal specifically because the appellant filed the request prior to any judicial decision being rendered, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1).

What authority does a Texas appellate court use to dismiss an appeal following an appellant's motion?

The Ninth Court of Appeals relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(f) to issue its final judgment. This rule provides the court with the specific authority to dismiss an appeal as its final disposition of the case.

What was the procedural context of the Kacz v. Mathews appeal?

Case No. 09-25-00523-CV was designated as an accelerated appeal from the 284th District Court of Montgomery County. Accelerated appeals in Texas often involve interlocutory orders or specific statutory mandates requiring expedited review, though the court dismissed this case before reaching the merits.

What is the significance of an 'unopposed' motion to dismiss in Texas appellate practice?

When a motion to dismiss is 'unopposed,' it signifies that the appellee does not contest the appellant's request to terminate the proceedings. In Kacz v. Mathews, the unopposed nature of the motion allowed the Ninth Court of Appeals to grant the dismissal per curiam without the need for further briefing or a decision on the merits.

Kacz v. Mathews | Texas Family Law Powerhouse

Q: Does the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure allow for a court to deny a voluntary motion to dismiss?

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the court has the discretion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment based on an agreement, provided the action does not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. In this instance, the Ninth Court of Appeals exercised its power to grant the dismissal in full.

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 09-25-00523-CV, February 12, 2026.

On appeal from the 284th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Ninth Court of Appeals granted an appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss an accelerated appeal prior to the issuance of a decision on the merits. This dismissal was executed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), illustrating the court's adherence to party-driven resolution when procedural requirements are met before adjudication.

Relevance to Family Law

Accelerated appeals are common in family law, particularly concerning interlocutory orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) and appeals from terminations of parental rights. This case confirms the procedural reliability of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) in the Ninth Court, providing a clear path for practitioners to terminate appellate review when a settlement is reached or a strategic pivot is necessary during the pendency of an accelerated matter. For family law litigators, this reinforces the importance of timing; the window to control the narrative via voluntary dismissal remains open only until the court issues its decision.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Appellant Justin Marcus Kacz initiated an accelerated appeal following an order from the 284th District Court of Montgomery County. While the appeal was active, but prior to the Ninth Court of Appeals rendering a judgment or issuing an opinion on the underlying merits, the appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. The record does not indicate a cross-appeal or any opposition from the appellee, Diyana Mathews, that would prevent the voluntary termination of the proceedings.

Issues Decided

The court considered whether an appellant may voluntarily dismiss an accelerated appeal via an unopposed motion filed before the appellate court has issued a decision on the merits.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), which allows an appellate court to dismiss an appeal in accordance with a motion by the appellant, provided the action does not prevent a party from seeking affirmative relief they would otherwise be entitled to. Additionally, the court invoked Rule 43.2(f), which authorizes the court of appeals to dismiss an appeal as a form of final judgment.

Application

In its analysis, the court focused strictly on the procedural posture of the case and the timing of the appellant's request. Because the motion to dismiss was "unopposed" and filed "before the appellate court issued a decision," the court found that the requirements of Rule 42.1 were satisfied. There were no competing claims for relief or jurisdictional barriers mentioned that would necessitate a merits-based review. The court essentially treated the motion as a procedural right of the appellant to non-suit their own appeal, leading to a summary disposition of the case without a deep dive into the underlying trial court errors.

Holding

The court granted the appellant's unopposed motion to dismiss the accelerated appeal. By doing so, the court exercised its authority under Rule 42.1(a)(1) to honor the appellant's request to cease litigation.

The court formally dismissed the appeal under Rule 43.2(f). This holding concludes the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the matter without affirming or reversing the trial court's original order, effectively leaving the lower court's ruling intact.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case serves as a reminder of the "off-ramp" available during accelerated appellate proceedings. Whether a client settles a custody dispute via mediation while the appeal is pending or determines that the cost-benefit analysis of continuing the appeal no longer favors litigation, Rule 42.1 is the primary mechanism for a clean exit. Practitioners should ensure that any settlement agreement explicitly addresses the withdrawal of the appeal and the allocation of appellate costs to ensure the motion remains unopposed.

Checklists

Executing a Voluntary Dismissal

Verify Opposition Status: Confirm with opposing counsel that the motion is truly unopposed to ensure a Per Curiam dismissal rather than a contested motion.
Check the Clock: Ensure the motion is filed before the Court of Appeals issues its memorandum opinion or judgment to maintain control over the dismissal.
Address Costs: Specify in the motion how appellate costs should be handled; under Rule 42.1(d), the court will tax costs against the appellant unless otherwise agreed.

Strategic Considerations for Accelerated Appeals

Settlement Integration: Include language in mediated settlement agreements (MSAs) that mandates the filing of a Rule 42.1 motion within a specific timeframe.
Mootness Review: Evaluate if the voluntary dismissal of an accelerated interlocutory appeal affects the timeline of the final trial on the merits.
Preserve the Record: Be mindful that dismissing the appeal leaves the trial court’s order fully enforceable; ensure your client understands the status quo that will remain.

Citation

Justin Marcus Kacz v. Diyana Mathews, No. 09-25-00523-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~a6f1a259-7225-40c7-bf68-530c45860c32~~

Kacz v. Mathews

Litigation Takeaway