What is the litigation takeaway from Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC?

When facing a high-conflict pro se opponent, check the Office of Court Administration’s vexatious litigant list; if they are listed, any appeal they file without a permit from the local administrative judge is procedurally fatal and can be dismissed without the need to argue the merits.

What is the summary of Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC?

Harriet Nicholson, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a pro se restricted appeal without obtaining a mandatory prefiling order from the local administrative judge. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which requires such litigants to obtain written permission before initiating new litigation, including appeals. The court determined that under Section 11.1035, it had an affirmative duty to dismiss the case because it was filed without the required permit. Because Nicholson failed to provide the necessary order—and instead provided an order showing the administrative judge had specifically denied her request—the court held it lacked authority to hear the appeal and dismissed the case.

What are the legal requirements for a vexatious litigant to file a new appeal in Texas?

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.101, a person subject to a prefiling order must obtain permission from the appropriate local administrative judge before filing any new action or appeal pro se. Per Section 11.103(a), a court clerk is prohibited from filing such an action unless it is accompanied by the required order permitting the filing.

What happens if a Texas court mistakenly files an appeal from a person subject to a vexatious litigant prefiling order?

According to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.1035(b), the court must dismiss the litigation unless the vexatious litigant demonstrates they have obtained an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing. Appellate courts typically notify the appellant of the intent to dismiss, providing a deadline to furnish the required order before the appeal is dismissed under Rule 42.3.

Does a Texas court clerk have the authority to refuse a notice of appeal filed by a pro se vexatious litigant?

Yes. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.103(a), a clerk may not file an appeal or other litigation presented pro se by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the litigant provides an order from the local administrative judge. This serves as a statutory gatekeeping mechanism to prevent the initiation of unauthorized proceedings.

Are there any statutory exceptions to the prefiling order requirement for vexatious litigants under Section 11.103?

Yes, Section 11.103(d) provides two specific exceptions: an appellate clerk may file an appeal from the prefiling order itself (the order designating the person a vexatious litigant) or a timely writ of mandamus as permitted under Section 11.102. Outside of these exceptions, permission from a local administrative judge is mandatory for pro se filings.

Can a Texas appellate court dismiss an appeal if a vexatious litigant's request for a prefiling order is denied?

If a vexatious litigant fails to furnish an order granting permission to proceed, the appellate court is required to dismiss the appeal under Section 11.1035(b) and Rule 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. If the local administrative judge has explicitly denied the request for permission to appeal, the court lacks the authority to hear the case and must dismiss it.

Who has the authority to grant a vexatious litigant permission to file a restricted appeal in Texas?

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.102, a vexatious litigant must seek permission from the local administrative judge in the jurisdiction where the filing is intended. If the administrative judge denies the request—even if the judge does so after an off-record review—the litigant is barred from proceeding with the filing in the appellate court.

Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC | Texas Family Law Powerhouse

Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 02-26-00019-CV, March 19, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1, Tarrant County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se restricted appeal filed by a declared vexatious litigant who failed to obtain the mandatory prefiling order from the local administrative judge. This decision reaffirms that the requirements of Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code are jurisdictional gatekeepers that appellate courts must strictly enforce, leaving no room for unauthorized pro se filings.

Relevance to Family Law

In high-conflict family law litigation, practitioners frequently encounter pro se litigants who use serial filings, collateral attacks, and restricted appeals to delay the finality of property divisions or custody orders. This case reinforces a powerful procedural shield: if an opposing party has been declared a vexatious litigant, their ability to seek appellate review is not an absolute right but a conditioned privilege. For the family law attorney, this means that unauthorized attempts to challenge a decree via restricted appeal can be summarily defeated without the need to brief the merits, provided the practitioner or the court identifies the lack of an administrative prefiling permit.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Appellant Harriet Nicholson, appearing pro se, was declared a vexatious litigant on January 5, 2022. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.101, she became subject to a prefiling order prohibiting her from initiating any new "litigation"—which includes an appeal—in a Texas court without first obtaining written permission from the appropriate local administrative judge. Despite this restriction, Nicholson filed a notice of restricted appeal in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals without an accompanying permit. The Second Court of Appeals issued a notice of intent to dismiss, providing Nicholson an opportunity to cure the defect by furnishing the required order from the local administrative judge. Nicholson responded by filing documents that confirmed she did not have permission; in fact, she provided the appellate court with a copy of an order from the local administrative judge specifically denying her request to pursue the appeal.

Issues Decided

Whether an appellate court is required to dismiss a restricted appeal filed by a pro se vexatious litigant who has not obtained the requisite prefiling order from the local administrative judge.
Whether the appellate court may proceed when the record affirmatively shows the local administrative judge denied the litigant's request for a prefiling permit.

Rules Applied

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.101: Authorizes a court to enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing, pro se, new litigation without permission.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(a): Prohibits a clerk from filing an appeal presented by a pro se vexatious litigant unless the litigant obtains a permit from the local administrative judge.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.1035(b): Mandates that a court must dismiss litigation if it was mistakenly filed without the required prefiling order.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(d): Provides narrow exceptions for appeals of the prefiling order itself or for timely writs of mandamus, neither of which applied in this instance.
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f): Procedural mechanisms for the involuntary dismissal of appeals.

Application

The court’s analysis was a strict application of the Chapter 11 statutory framework. Because Nicholson had been designated a vexatious litigant, her notice of restricted appeal constituted "litigation" subject to the prefiling permit requirement. The court noted that while the clerk may have mistakenly filed the appeal, Section 11.1035(b) created an affirmative duty for the court to dismiss the case once the lack of a permit was identified. The court engaged in a narrative review of the procedural history, noting that Nicholson was given a window to cure the deficiency. However, instead of producing a permit, Nicholson admitted that the local administrative judge had "left the bench" and "returned to deny the prefiling order." By presenting the actual order of denial to the Court of Appeals, the Appellant effectively proved the court's lack of jurisdiction to hear the merits of her appeal.

Holding

The Second Court of Appeals held that it must dismiss the appeal. Because the Appellant is a declared vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order and failed to comply with the mandatory permit requirements of Chapter 11, the court lacked the authority to entertain the restricted appeal. The court further held that all pending motions were rendered moot by the dismissal, ensuring that the vexatious litigant could not use ancillary motions to further burden the court's resources or the Appellee's counsel.

Practical Application

For the Texas family law litigator, this case emphasizes the importance of performing "litigant due diligence" at the outset of any appeal. If you represent a party who has secured a favorable judgment against a pro se opponent, verify their status on the Office of Court Administration’s (OCA) vexatious litigant list immediately upon the filing of a notice of appeal. If they are listed, their failure to simultaneously file a permit from the local administrative judge is a fatal procedural defect that should be leveraged via a motion to dismiss to avoid unnecessary litigation costs.

Checklists

Vetting the Pro Se Appellant

Consult the OCA’s statewide List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order.
Review the specific terms of the underlying prefiling order to ensure it covers the current court and type of filing.
Examine the appellate record for a "Permission to File" order signed by the local administrative judge (not the trial judge).

Procedural Defensive Tactics

File a "Suggestion of Vexatious Litigant Status" with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals if the clerk has mistakenly accepted the notice of appeal.
Move for dismissal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.1035 if the Appellant fails to provide a permit within the court-ordered timeframe.
Request that the court stay all briefing deadlines until the jurisdictional permit issue is resolved.

Citation

Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 02-26-00019-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

The full opinion of the court can be found here: [Full Opinion](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=d14667d0-bc41-467b-8310-a220d2007cf6&MediaID=f7888b5c-9e02-4bce-a1f2-73278ab04250&coa=Second Court of Appeals&DT=Opinion)

Family Law Crossover

This civil ruling is highly weaponizable in divorce and custody disputes involving a "scorched earth" pro se opponent. If a spouse has been declared a vexatious litigant in a previous suit—regardless of whether that suit was family-related—their status as a vexatious litigant follows them into the family law arena. When such a litigant attempts to file a restricted appeal to overturn a default divorce decree or a modification order, Nicholson provides the authority to shut down the appeal at the gate. Because restricted appeals are often used by parties who claim they were not served or did not participate in the trial-court hearing, they can be a major source of post-judgment instability. By strictly enforcing Chapter 11 in the appellate context, family law practitioners can protect the finality of their clients' decrees and prevent the opposing party from using the appellate process as a tool for financial or emotional harassment. This case confirms that the administrative judge—not the appellate court—is the ultimate arbiter of whether a vexatious spouse's appeal is "meritorious" or "harassing." ~~09238712-71e5-4793-909f-d411727c61ec~~

Nicholson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Litigation Takeaway