### NUM BER 13-07- 0042 5-CV


## COURT OF A PP EA LS
T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS
C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

NOR M A F LOR ES L A GOS, A pp ellan t,

v . FE LA B . OL IVA REZ A ND D R. GEN E T REV INO, A pp ellees

.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 70t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION

Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Nor ma Fl or es Lag os, appeal s t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd er deny ing her

noevidence m otion f or sum ma ry judgmen t. Af

ter Lagos f ailed to atte nd the tr ial on th e me rits,
th e tr i al c ou r t en te r ed a fi na l j ud g me nt a g ai ns t La g os

. W e affi r m.
I. B A CKGRO UND On M ay 19, 2005, appel lee s, Fel a B. Ol iv ar ez , a lic e n sed attor ney , and D r. Gene2

Trev in o , a p ro per

ty ev alu ati on ex per

t, filed su it ag ain st Lag os. The c auses of act ion
include d a suit on a sw orn acco unt and , in the a lterna tiv e, f raud and conversion. Th e suit

ar ose from a c ontr act that w as enter ed i nto b y Lag os w it h Ol iv ar ez and Trev ino for l eg al and pr oper

ty ev alu ati on s er

v ic es in a di v or ce in w hic h Lag os w as the r espon dent. Lag os f iled an answer tha t include d a general de nial, a verified den ial, and an af f irmative def ense of e s to pp el

. O n Au g us t 4, 2 00 5, L ag os suppl em en te d he r a ns w er t o ad d c ou nt er c l ai ms for fraud ule nt mi sr epr esent ati on and br each of contr act

. On A ug ust 11, 2005, Lag os
amended he r answ er

to add t he c ounter cl aim of conv er si on. On S eptember

19, 2005, Lag os filed a no-ev ide nce moti on f or su mmary

j udg ement.
See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 166a( i)

. The ci v il doc ket sh eet n otes that on S eptember 26, 2006, Lag os’ s mot ion for n o- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment w as deni ed, and a l etter w as mail ed
to t he par

ti es. Ther e i s, how ev er , no or der off ic ial ly fil ed i n the cl er k’ s r ecor d deny ing the
moti on. On Ap ril 16, 200 7, the ma tter w as set fo r tri al on th e me rits. Lagos fa iled to ap pea r,
and t he tr ial co ur t ent er ed a final j udg ment ag ain st her

. Lagos fil ed a moti on for a new tr ial
that w as deni ed on June 7, 20 07. Pr oceed ing pr o s e, La g os now appeal s.
II. D ENI A L OF N O - EVI D ENC E S U M M A R Y J UDGME NT By a si ng le is sue, Lagos contends that the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing her moti on for

no- ev ide nce summar

y j udg ment.
A . Discuss ion “A pro se litig ant is held to the same stand ards as license d a t t o rn e ys a nd m ust

com ply w ith ap plicable law s and rules of proce dure .” Gr een v . Ka post a , 152 S.W .3d 8 39,3

8 4 1 ( T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t. ) (ci ti n g Str ange v. Con t’

l Cas . C o. , 126 S.W .3d 6 76,
677 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 04, no pet. )). T here f ore, “[o] n ap pea l, as at trial, the pro se
app ellant must prope rly presen t its case.” Id . (c it in g Str ange , 126 S.W .3d a t 678 ).
In her sol e is sue, Lag os compl ain s that the tr ial cour t er re d in denyin g he r noev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. H ow ev er , t he g ener al ru le is that appel lat e c our ts
do not h av e j ur is dic ti on to r ev iew the deni al of a summar y j udg ment. Hi

nes v. Co m m ’

n for
L a wy e r D i s c i p li ne, 2 8 S .W .3d 6 97, 7 00 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, no p et.) ( ci ti ng
Ack er m an v . Vo rd enbaum , 403 S.W .2d 3 62, 3 65 ( Tex . 199 6) ; Highlan ds MG MT

. Co . v.
Fi rs t Inter sta te Bank of T

ex. , N .A. , 956 S.W .2d 749, 752 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1997, pet. deni ed) ); see T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 1 66a c mt. t o 1997 chang e ( “The deni al of a [noev ide nce summar

y j udg ment] is no mor e r ev iew abl e by ap p e a l or

mandamus than the
deni al of a [tr adi ti onal moti on for summar y jud g ment]. ”)

. W e l ack j ur is dic ti on to r ev iew

the
trial court’s den ial of

Lagos’s no-evidence mot ion f or sum ma ry judgmen t. W e overrule Lag os’ s s ole i ss ue.
III

. C ONCL US I ON
Hav ing ov er ru led Lag os’ s s ole i ss ue, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s fin al jud g ment.

GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 23r d day

of Jul y , 200 9.