Document type: Memorandum Opinion
Court: Ninth Court of Appeals, Beaumont, Texas
Appeal: 09-25-00308-CV
Trial Cause: 25-04-06650
Date: August 6, 2026
What the appellate court decided
The Ninth Court held that Eric Springstun’s challenge to the $25,000 security requirement could not be reviewed through that interlocutory appeal and dismissed that portion for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court affirmed other portions of the Chapter 11 order, including the prefiling requirement. The opinion also identified a separate final-judgment appeal in which the security issue could be addressed after final dismissal.
Reporter-record issue
The opinion explains that no official reporter’s record of the Chapter 11 evidentiary hearing had been brought forward in the appellate record. That missing record affected review of evidence-dependent issues because the appellate court applied the usual presumption associated with an incomplete reporter’s record.
Security issue left for later final-judgment review
The opinion specifically notes that the $25,000 security challenge was not reviewable in that interlocutory appeal. It also notes the existence of a separate appeal, 09-26-00023-CV, from the later October 2, 2025 final dismissal for failure to post the security.
Why the procedural distinction matters
The court did not reach the merits of the $25,000 security amount in this interlocutory appeal. That part of the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, while the designation and prefiling portion were affirmed.
Later filings
Eric Springstun later sought rehearing and en banc reconsideration, including arguments concerning the scope of the prefiling language and the effect of the missing official reporter’s record. Those later filings are separate from the August 6 opinion itself.
Related pages
From the Marina
Wharf Clear Lake photo archive
