David Lynn v. Ronald Ferguson

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00619-CV
___________________________

DAVID LYNN, Appellant

V.

RONALD FERGUSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 348th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 348-331430-22

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Appellant David Lynn appeals the trial court’s turnover order. After he

filed his notice of appeal, Lynn did not timely elect to file an appendix in lieu of the

clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5a(a) (stating that “[t]he notice of election must

be filed within 10 days after the” notice of appeal’s filing). Accordingly, he was

responsible for arranging to pay for the preparation of the clerk’s record, which was

due on January 12, 2026. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1, 35.3(a)(2).

After the trial-court clerk informed us that no payment arrangements had been

made, we called this issue to Lynn’s attention in our January 14, 2026, February 11,

2026, and March 20, 2026 letters, including informing him that he had failed to timely

elect to proceed on an appendix in lieu of a clerk’s record and had failed to pay for the

clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In response, Lynn claimed that the

trial-court clerk had wrongfully rejected a money order that he had submitted. But we

have confirmed with the trial-court clerk that (1) the money order was rejected

because it was not signed and (2) Lynn has not otherwise paid for the clerk’s record.

More than four months have passed since the clerk’s record was due, and Lynn

has failed to make arrangements to pay for it. Because Lynn has not made satisfactory

payment arrangements for the clerk’s record’s preparation, we dismiss this appeal for

want of prosecution.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b); Parrish v. PDG Grp. Inc., No.

1
In deciding this appeal, we grant Lynn’s motion to exceed the word count, see
Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B), and have considered his subsequent filings.

2
2-03-266-CV, 2004 WL 595078, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 25, 2004, no

pet.).

Lynn has alternatively requested that we treat his appeal as a petition for writ of

mandamus. Having considered it as such, the court is of the opinion that relief should

be denied. Accordingly, Lynn’s alternative petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 14, 2026

3