IN THE SUPREME = COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 06-0533

════════λ= 2;═══

Linda Sprowl and Jennifer Michelle Sprowl, Petitioners,

George Martin = Payne,=20 Respondent

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the Fifth = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══

PER = CURIAM

=20 The trial court dismissed Linda Sprowl=92s fourth=20 paternity suit against George Payne concerning her daughter, Jennifer, = based on=20 res judicata. = Sprowl timely filed a notice of appeal, but did = not pay to=20 have the record prepared or file an affidavit of indigence =93with or = before=94 the=20 notice as Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(c)(1)=20 requires. Seven days after filing her notice of appeal, Sprowl filed an affidavit of indigence. The clerk = contested=20 the timeliness of Sprowl=92s affidavit, and = the trial=20 court sustained that contest. The court of appeals agreed that Sprowl=92s affidavit of indigence was untimely = because it was=20 not filed =93with or before=94 her notice of appeal, and ordered Sprowl to file proof within ten days that she had = paid or=20 made arrangements to pay for the appellate record. When Sprowl failed to do so, the court dismissed her = appeal. We=20 hold that the court of appeals erred in dismissing Sprowl=92s appeal.

=20 We recently decided two cases similar to the one presented. In = Higgins=20 v. Randall County Sheriff=92s Office, the court of appeals dismissed = an=20 inmate=92s appeal for failure to pay the filing fee or file an affidavit = of=20 indigence =93with or before=94 the notice of appeal, although the = affidavit was=20 filed within the ten days the court of appeals=92 order allowed to = correct the=20 error by paying the fee. 193 S.W.3d 898, 899-900 = (Tex. = 2006).=20 Similarly, in Hood v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court of appeals = dismissed an appeal when the appellant filed an affidavit of indigence = not =93with=20 or before=94 the notice of appeal but within the ten-day period for = paying the=20 filing fee. 216 S.W.3d 829, 830 (Tex. = 2007). We=20 reversed those dismissals, noting that the affidavit of indigence is no = longer a=20 jurisdictional requirement for an appeal and holding that Rule 44.3 = prohibits=20 dismissal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure = without=20 first allowing the appellant a reasonable time to correct the error. = Id. at = 830;=20 Higgins, 193 S.W.3d at 899-900. Thus, = failure to=20 file an affidavit of indigence =93with or before=94 a notice of appeal = will not=20 support dismissal unless the appellant is given a reasonable time to = correct the=20 defect and fails to do so.

=20 In this case, Sprowl=92s notice of = appeal was=20 initially defective because it was unaccompanied by the filing fee or an = affidavit of indigence as required by Rule 20.1(c)(1).=20 However, Sprowl corrected the defect by = filing her=20 affidavit of indigence shortly thereafter; it was not even necessary for = the=20 court of appeals to permit her additional reasonable time to correct the = defect.=20 Accordingly, without hearing argument, we grant the petition for review, = reverse=20 the court of appeals=92 judgment, and remand to that court for further = proceedings=20 consistent with this opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.

Opinion = Delivered:=20 November 2, 2007