This section is the central court-record index for matters involving Eric Springstun, Wharf Marina at Clear Lake, The Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maintenance Association, Inc., and related participants. Eric Springstun’s perspective throughout the archive is that he is a deeded property owner seeking to protect access, use, safety, financial transparency, and fair treatment of his property. The goal is to show the procedural history in that property-owner context rather than reduce years of related disputes to isolated labels or a raw case count.
Not every case was a lawsuit Eric Springstun initiated
A raw count of docket numbers can be misleading. Some of the most important matters in this archive began with claims filed against Eric Springstun or entities connected to his property interests, while other entries are appeals, interventions, counterclaims, or review proceedings growing out of earlier cases.
- 23-07-10483-CV: The Wharf Association filed the action against Eric Springstun. Its temporary-injunction request was denied after hearing, and the Association later nonsuited its own affirmative claims.
- 24-CV-0102: The Galveston County record is styled The Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maintenance Association, Inc. v. Eric Springstun.
- 24-CV-1258: The Wharf sued BirdFox, LLC; the later Fourteenth Court opinion expressly states that the default judgment was against BirdFox and did not impose personal liability on Eric Springstun.
- 2025-60253: Eric Springstun entered an already-existing Harris County dispute by intervention rather than filing the original action.
- 1242907: Eric Springstun likewise intervened in an underlying dispute that began between other parties.
Appeals are also not new trial-court lawsuits. They are requests for appellate review of orders entered in existing cases. This site therefore separates original actions, counterclaims, interventions, and appeals instead of lumping them together as though every docket number represented a new lawsuit independently filed by Eric Springstun.
Montgomery County
The Wharf v. Eric Springstun — Cause 23-07-10483-CV
Association-filed injunction action; temporary-injunction denial; Association nonsuit; later summary judgment on Eric Springstun’s counterclaims; Ninth Court affirmance; Texas Supreme Court denial of review.
Eric Springstun — Consolidated Causes, lead Cause 25-04-06650
Multiple related 2025 Montgomery County causes were consolidated into one lead case, followed by Chapter 11 and security proceedings, dismissal, post-order motions, reporter-record issues, and appellate review.
Eric Springstun Appeal 09-26-00023-CV
Appeal from the October 2, 2025 final dismissal, focusing on the $25,000 security requirement, Rule 145 cost issues, and the scope of the consolidated action.
Eric Springstun v. Bradford Abrams — Appeal 09-26-00108-CV
Legal-malpractice appeal involving an earlier denial of traditional summary judgment, later no-evidence summary judgment, an excluded expert declaration, and related evidentiary issues.
Eric Springstun v. City of League City, et al. — Cause 25-07-11948
Access-related action; TRO denied; later dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Galveston County
Eric Springstun & The Wharf — Cause 24-CV-0102
September 2024 jurisdiction ruling, later proceedings, reported February 2026 jury disposition, and First Court appellate activity.
Eric Springstun Appeal 01-26-00448-CV
First Court docketing and Rule 145(g) / inability-to-pay filing history.
Eric Springstun, BirdFox LLC & The Wharf — Cause 24-CV-1258 / Appeal 14-25-00202-CV
The default judgment was entered against BirdFox, LLC—not Eric Springstun personally. The Fourteenth Court later dismissed Springstun’s attempted appeal because he lacked standing to appeal a judgment that did not bind him personally.
Eric Springstun Bill of Review — Cause 25-CV-1289 / Appeal 14-26-00104-CV
Bill-of-review challenge to the BirdFox judgment; security order; January 2026 dismissal; motion for new trial; Fourteenth Court appellate record.
Harris County
Eric Springstun Intervention — Cause 2025-60253 / Appeal 14-26-00485-CV
Intervention in a Harris County action involving The Wharf and several board-related defendants; February 2026 strike order; later appeal dismissed as interlocutory, with the mandamus conversion request denied without prejudice to refiling.
Eric Springstun Appeal 14-26-00489-CV — Intervention & Appellate Review
Separate Harris County appeal challenging the order striking Eric Springstun’s intervention and a $2,500 Chapter 9 monetary award in Cause 1242907. The page focuses on the timing of the intervention, the later-cited prefiling order, and the procedural arguments presented to the Fourteenth Court.
Justice issues by case
- 24-CV-0102: lawful self-representation, verified recusal motions, pre-purchase A/R evidence, a $94,221.20 trial-fee award against $1,886.36 in personal assessment damages, Rule 145 issues, and access to the reporter’s record.
- BirdFox / 24-CV-1258: deeds recorded before judgment, attempted substitution and intervention, a direct appeal dismissed for lack of standing because the judgment did not bind Eric Springstun personally, and later bill-of-review litigation over property-enforcement consequences.
- 25-CV-1289: a $25,000 security requirement followed by dismissal before the trial court reached the underlying property merits, according to the current appellate briefing.
- 25-04-06650 / 09-25-00308-CV: reporter-record issues, security proceedings, and appellate presumptions affecting evidence-dependent review.
- 25-07-11948: property-access claims dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than through a trial on every underlying factual issue.
Justice and self-representation context
Several of the cases in this index involve Eric Springstun appearing without trial counsel. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7 expressly permits an individual party to appear and prosecute or defend his own rights in person. Self-representation does not guarantee easier rules or a favorable result, but it also does not diminish the property interests, evidence, or judicial-impartiality standards at issue.
That context matters because some proceedings turned on standing, jurisdiction, intervention, security, reporter-record access, cost procedure, or other threshold doctrines before a court reached the central property issue on the merits. The site’s justice page collects those procedural barriers alongside the Texas open-courts, due-course, recusal, and judicial-conduct framework.
Read the Self-Representation & Access to Justice resource
Wharf Marina context
The court cases concern real deeded property and a real marina community. These general marina photographs provide physical context; they are not offered as evidence of any particular allegation.
How to read the procedural labels
| Label | What it generally means |
|---|---|
| Nonsuit | A party voluntarily stops pursuing its claim; it is not the same as a merits victory on that claim. |
| Jurisdictional dismissal | The court concludes it lacks authority to adjudicate the matter in that posture; it does not necessarily decide every factual issue. |
| Interlocutory appeal | An attempted appeal before final judgment; review may be unavailable until later. |
| Standing dismissal | The appellate court concludes the appellant is not legally entitled to challenge that judgment; it is not automatically a ruling on all underlying property issues. |
| Security dismissal | A case may end because ordered security was not posted, potentially before the underlying merits are reached. |
How to read this index
Each page is written to distinguish the court’s signed order from the allegations and arguments that preceded or followed it. When an appellate court dismisses for standing, this site says standing. When a trial court dismisses for want of jurisdiction, this site says jurisdiction. When a party nonsuits, this site says nonsuit rather than pretending there was a merits judgment.
From the Marina
Wharf Clear Lake photo archive
