Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 26, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00598-CV

BARBARA CARRAWAY, Appellant

V.

ALBERT BLACK AS RECEIVER 

FOR 3304 JUDGE DUPREE DRIVE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02040-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Smith, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Breedlove

This is an appeal from a forcible entry and detainer suit tried de novo in county 

court. Appellant Barbara Carraway, proceeding pro se, appeals the county court’s 

judgment awarding the property to Albert Black as Receiver for 3304 Judge Dupree 

Drive (Black). For the reasons we discuss below, we dismiss the appeal.

Black filed a forcible entry and detainer suit in justice court against Barbara 

Carraway, Pamela Carraway, and all occupants of a home at 3304 Judge Dupree 

Drive in Dallas. Black was awarded possession of the premises on April 4, 2022. 
–2–

Carraway appealed to county court. That court awarded possession of the premises 

to Black by judgment dated June 16, 2022.

Carraway filed her notice of appeal in this Court and proffered a pro se brief 

on September 26, 2022, asserting two issues: (1) “As an owner of the property, does

defendant[ ] have a right to request additional time to move from the property?” and 

(2) Can the property be sold or can the sale of the property take place prior to the 

defendants moving from the property?” Carraway also filed a motion requesting an 

extension of time to stay at the property. We denied the motion by order of October 

11, 2022, because Carraway did not file a supersedeas bond within ten days of the 

judgment. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (county court’s judgment “may not 

under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal” without filing of appeal bond 

within ten days of judgment).

In our order, we also advised Carraway that her brief did not comply with rule 

of appellate procedure 38.1 because it did not contain: (1) a list of all parties; (2) a 

table of contents that indicated the subject matter of each issue; (3) an index of 

authorities; (4) a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the 

trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references; (5) a concise 

statement of the facts supported by record references; (6) a succinct, clear, and 

accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief; (7) appropriate 

citations to authorities; and (8) appropriate citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(a)–(d), (g)–(i). We ordered Carraway to file an amended brief correcting 
–3–

these deficiencies and cautioned her that failure to comply may result in dismissal 

of her appeal without further notice.

Pursuant to our order, Carraway filed an amended brief on October 20, 2022. 

Although Carraway complied in part with this Court’s order to correct the abovenoted deficiencies, she did not provide any legal argument or citation to authority to 

support her contentions that she had “a right to request additional time to move” and 

that the property could not be sold before she moved. Instead, she again requested

to remain in the home for an indefinite period, citing matters outside the appellate 

record.

Black has filed a response arguing that Carraway has not made any legal 

argument or cited to any precedent that would allow her to retain possession of the 

property. We agree.

Parties to civil litigation in Texas may represent themselves at trial or on 

appeal. TEX. R. CIV. P. 7; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d

893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). The right of self-representation carries 

with it the responsibility to comply with our rules of appellate procedure. Bolling,

315 S.W.3d at 895 (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 

(Tex. 1978)). Courts regularly caution pro se litigants that courts will not treat them 

differently from a party who is represented by a licensed attorney. See Mansfield

State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 184–85; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.
–4–

Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. TEX. R. APP. P.

38. These rules require appellants to state concisely their complaints, to provide 

succinct, clear, and accurate arguments for why their complaints have merit in law 

and fact, to cite legal authority that is applicable to their complaints, and to cite 

appropriate references in the record. TEX.R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i). To comply with 

rule 38.1(f), an appellant must articulate the issues we will be asked to decide. 

Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (“[W]e must be able to discern what question of law we

will be answering.”) The brief fails if we must speculate or guess about the 

appellant’s contentions. Id.

Although we do not adhere to rigid rules about the form of briefing when 

deciding whether an appellant’s brief is deficient, we do examine briefs for 

compliance with the briefing rules. Id. at 895. After close examination, if we can 

conclude a brief complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we submit 

the appeal for review and decision on the merits. See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 

585, 587 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (appellate court should reach the merits of an 

appeal whenever reasonably possible). If we cannot, we may dismiss the appeal as 

we are authorized to do by our appellate rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315

S.W.3d at 895–96.

Although Carraway timely filed a corrected brief, she cites no legal authority 

to support her contentions that she has a right to request additional time to move 

from the property and that the property cannot be sold before she moves. Her 
–5–

argument contains no citations to the record and she does not explain how the trial 

court erred in its ruling. Because Carraway failed to comply with the briefing 

requirements of the rules of appellate procedure after having been given the 

opportunity to do so, we dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling,

315 S.W.3d at 895–97.

220598f.p05

/Maricela Breedlove//

MARICELA BREEDLOVE

JUSTICE
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BARBARA CARRAWAY, 

Appellant

No. 05-22-00598-CV V.

ALBERT BLACK AS RECEIVER 

FOR 3304 JUDGE DUPREE 

DRIVE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02040-

E.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 26th day of May, 2023.