The Texas Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Sean Price against Natasha Clayborn concerning two post-divorce orders. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because it was filed too late. This decision affects the enforcement of property division following their divorce.
The dispute stems from a divorce case where Price and Clayborn had previously agreed on property division in their final decree. However, after the court issued two orders in June 2024 regarding the enforcement of this property division, Price sought to challenge these orders. His appeal, filed on March 18, 2026, was deemed untimely by the court, which has significant implications for both parties.
Sean Price and Natasha Clayborn were once married but are now navigating the complexities of post-divorce property division. Their divorce was finalized with an Agreed Final Decree on August 11, 2023. As part of this decree, they reached a Mediated Settlement Agreement regarding the division of their marital residence. However, disagreements arose when the court issued two orders on June 4, 2024: one enforcing the property division and another appointing a receiver to manage the property.
Price filed a petition for a bill of review on November 6, 2025, over a year after the orders were signed. He argued that the orders conflicted with their Mediated Settlement Agreement. However, the trial court denied his request, prompting him to appeal the decision. Clayborn, the appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming it was untimely.
The court ruled that Price's appeal was not valid, stating, "We conclude that the record does not support construing appellant’s motion to vacate as a bill of review." The judges on the panel included Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney. The court explained that a bill of review is an independent action asking a trial court to set aside a final judgment, but Price was not seeking to vacate the divorce decree itself.
Instead, Price's argument focused on enforcing the terms of the divorce decree as he interpreted them. The court clarified that his motion was essentially a request to set aside the June 4, 2024, orders, which are not independently appealable. The court further noted that even if they considered the notice of appeal as a direct appeal of the June 4 orders, it was filed too late, exceeding the deadline set by Texas law.
The court ultimately dismissed Price's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating, "We therefore lack jurisdiction under any construction of appellant’s appeal." This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal matters, especially in family law cases.
This ruling has significant implications for both parties moving forward. For Price, the dismissal means he cannot contest the enforcement of the property division as outlined in the divorce decree. For Clayborn, the ruling allows her to proceed with the enforcement of the orders without further legal challenges from Price.
The decision also highlights the legal principle that parties must act promptly when seeking to challenge court orders. Failing to do so can result in losing the right to appeal, as seen in this case. It serves as a reminder for individuals involved in legal disputes to be aware of deadlines and the proper procedures for filing appeals.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if Price will seek to appeal this decision further. The court's ruling is final unless he can demonstrate a valid reason for an appeal to a higher court. There are no related cases pending in this matter at this time, but the outcome of this case could influence future disputes regarding post-divorce property enforcement in Texas.