In Re Scott Mitchell Obeginski v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00194-CV
__________________

IN RE SCOTT MITCHELL OBEGINSKI

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-11-18234
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Scott Mitchell Obeginski asks this Court

to compel the Montgomery County District Clerk to accept monthly installment

payments of $500 for the clerk’s record for Appeal Number 09-25-00487-CV, Scott

Mitchell Obeginski v. Codilis & Moody, P.C., et al. He argues that relieving him

from paying $5,973 for the entire record now will protect our jurisdiction. See Tex.

Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (“Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of

appeals may issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce the

jurisdiction of the court.”).
1
For mandamus to issue against the District Clerk, “the party seeking

mandamus must show that there is no other adequate remedy available and that the

act sought to be mandated is ministerial.” In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182-83

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (clerk had ministerial duty

to forward notice of appeal to appellate court).

Relator has not shown that the District Clerk has a ministerial duty to accept

an installment payment plan. Generally, the District Clerk “shall collect at the time

the service is performed or at the time the service is requested the fees provided by

Subsection (b) for services performed by the clerk.” . . . (b)(5) “for preparation of

the clerk’s record on appeal, for each page or part of a page $1.” Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 51.318(a), (b)(5).

The clerk is responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing the clerk’s

record if “the party responsible for paying for the preparation of the clerk’s record

has paid the clerk’s fee, has made satisfactory arrangements with the clerk to pay the

fee, or is entitled to appeal without paying the fee.” See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).

Obeginski has not paid for the clerk’s record. Notwithstanding section 51.318 of the

Government Code, which states the clerk shall collect the fee when the service is

requested or performed, Relator argues $500 monthly installments are “satisfactory

arrangements” for purposes of Rule 35.3(a)(2). In order for an installment

2
arrangement to be satisfactory to the District Clerk, the clerk manifestly must be

satisfied that the fee will be paid in full and within a reasonable time. Otherwise, an

appellant might pay one or two installments and quit paying as soon as the clerk filed

the record with the appellate court.

When a party asserts that they are unable to afford to pay for the record, the

trial court may “order that the declarant pay the part of the costs the declarant can

afford or that payment be made in installments.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(f)(3). If the trial

court orders installment payments under Rule 145, the clerk must prepare and file

the record without delay. See id. The mandamus record does not show that Rule

145.3(f)(3) applies here. On January 9, 2026, the trial court signed an order that

stated in part, “It is ORDERED that Scott Obeginski shall pay to the Montgomery

County District Clerk all fees which are presently due and owing since he admitted

in open court and on the record that he is not indigent.” In Appeal Number 09-25-

00487-CV we gave Relator a February 17 deadline to seek review of the trial court’s

ruling. Relator filed a motion for a stay of the writ of execution, but he did not

challenge the trial court’s determination that he is able to pay costs for the record.

Relator has not shown that the District Clerk is required to accept installment

payments pursuant to Rule 145.

3
The District Clerk may possess discretion to accept or refuse installment

payments, but Relator has not shown that she has a ministerial duty to do so.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 3, 2026
Opinion Delivered June 4, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

4