Aaron Kyle Dodd and Olivia Peirce v. Venus Rasuli and Nasir Rasuli

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-25-00300-CV
___________________________

AARON KYLE DODD AND OLIVIA PEIRCE, Appellants

V.

VENUS RASULI AND NASIR RASULI, Appellees

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
Wise County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV-9654

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Aaron Kyle Dodd and Olivia Peirce1 attempt to appeal from the

trial court’s June 25, 2025 judgment.

A party who is not excused by statute or the rules of appellate procedure from

paying costs must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are

required by statute or Supreme Court order. Tex. R. App. P. 5. Appellants are not

excused from paying costs, and they are required to pay a $205.00 filing fee.2 See id.;

Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of

Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158

(Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees). Appellants have not paid the filing

fee.

On June 27, 2025, we notified Appellants by letter that if the filing fee was not

paid by July 7, 2025, the appeal could be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). On

July 15, 2025, we sent Appellants a second notice and warned that if the filing fee was

not paid by July 25, 2025, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellants responded to

our second notice and asked us to defer dismissing the appeal until the trial court had

The spelling of Peirce’s name differs between the trial court’s judgment and
1

Appellants’ notice of appeal. The judgment uses “Peirce” while the notice of appeal
uses “Pierce.”

Appellants filed an affidavit of indigency that the trial court denied on June 25,
2

2025.

2
ruled on their (1) motion to vacate or alter the judgment, (2) request for findings of

fact and conclusions of law, and (3) indigency determination. We did so.

On July 30, 2025, the trial court signed an order (1) denying Appellants’ motion

to vacate or alter the judgment, (2) denying their request for findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and (3) finding that it had already denied their affidavit of

indigency. The trial court has ruled on all three of their motions, yet the filing fee still

remains unpaid.3

Because Appellants have failed to comply with our notices requiring payment

of the filing fee, we dismiss the appeal. See id, 43.2(f).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker
Justice

Delivered: August 26, 2025

Appellants have not challenged the trial court’s indigency ruling, filed another
3

indigency affidavit, or complained to us that they are indigent.

3