### NUM BER 13-08- 0002 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 O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

JEN NIF ER LY NN M cF A LL VIL LA RR EA L, A pp ellan t,

v . ST EVEN VIL LA RR EA L, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 97t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lee , St ev en Vi ll ar re al, fil ed s uit to dis sol v e hi s mar ri ag e to pr o s e appel lan t, Jenni fer Ly nn M cF all Vi ll ar re al. By one is sue, Je nni fer appe als the tr ia l co urt' s d eni al of he r mo ti on for

c on ti nu an c e. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND Stev en fil ed hi s o ri g ina l peti ti on for div or ce on M ar ch 15, 2 007. On Oct ober 17, 2007, the t ri al cour

t s et t he final hear ing for D ecember 5, 2007. On D ecember

3, 2007, Jenni fer fil ed a moti on f or conti nuanc e as ser

ti ng that , "bas ed on medi cal r eason ing ," s he "had not h ad pr oper ti me frame t o pr epar e f or the pr e- tr ial date set forth on D ecember

5, 2007." In suppo rt of he r moti on, Jenni fer attac hed the fol low ing

ex hib it s: ( 1) a ho spi tal di sc har g e form show ing that she w as admit ted t o the hos pit al on Nov ember

25, 2007, and di sc har g ed on Nov ember 27, 2007; and (2) a do cument si g ned by Joe S. Cisneros, M.D., provi ding that on Novemb er 27, 2 007 , Jenn if er w as see n in his

o f f ic e a n d t h a t sh e wo u ld n o t b e a b le t o r e t u rn t o wo rk " u n t il f u rt h e r n o t ic e

. " Ad d it io n a ll y, in a s ect ion for c omments, D r. C is ner os w ro te "un abl e to w or k," "bed r est ," and "til l further noti ce. " Al thoug h J enni fer di d not r eq uest a he ar ing on h er moti on for cont inu ance, at the Dec ember

5 he ar ing , s he i nformed t he tri al cour t that she w as not r eady bec ause she had not had time to prepa re due to hosp itali za t io n s f or v arious rea sons. The trial court
pr oceed ed to hear

ev ide nce and g ra nted the d iv or ce. II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW A tr ial cour

t' s deci si on to deny a moti on for cont inu ance w il l not b e di stu rb ed abs ent

a show ing that it cl ear ly abuse d i ts dis cr eti on. BM C Soft ware Bel g., N. V. v

. M er chand , 83 S. W .3 d 7 8 9 , 8 0 0 (T e x. 20 0 2 ) (ci ti n g Vi ll egas v. Car

ter , 711 S.W .2d 624 , 626 (Tex. 1986 )); Ngo v. N go , 133 S.W .3d 6 88, 6 92- 93 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.)

. The tr ial

cour t s hal l not gran t a moti on for cont inu ance "ex cept for s uff ic ien t c ause suppo rt ed by aff ida v it , or

by co nsent of the p ar ti es, or by o p e ra ti on of l aw ." T EX

. R. C IV

. P

. 2 5 1

. W eJ e n n if e r a ls o g e n e r a lly c o m p la in s th a t S te v e n 's te s tim o n y w a s f a ls e a n d c o n s tit u te d in a d m is s ib le 1 hear say , t he soci al st udy w as i ncom pl et e, and t he t r i al cour t er r oneou sl y adm i t t ed em ai l s she al l egedl y sent t o St ev en. Because Jenni f er has not pr ov i ded a cl ear and conci se ar gum ent wi t h ci t at i ons t o au t hor i t y and to th e re c o rd w i th re s p e c t to th e s e a rg u m e n ts , w e c o n c l u d e th a t t h e y a re i n a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 3 8 .1 (h ). T h e re fo re , w e h a v e n o th i n g to re v i e w

. See Pl um m er v. R eeves , 93 S. W

. 3d 9 30, 931 ( T ex. A p p .— A m a ril l o 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ) ("A p o i n t o f e rr o r u n s u p p o rte d b y c i ta ti o n o f a n y l e g a l a u th o r ity p r e s e n ts n o th i n g fo r th e c o u rt to re v i e w ."); R i chard v

. C or ner st one C onst r uct or

s, I nc. , 921 S. W

. 2d 4 65, 469 ( T ex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D is t. ] 1 9 9 6 , w r it d e n ie d ) ( " A lth o u g h c o u r ts g e n e r a lly c o n s tr u e th e b r ie f in g r u le s lib e r a lly, a p oi nt of e rr or un s up po rt ed by t he ci t ati on of an y au t ho ri t y pres en t s no t hi ng for t hi s C ou rt t o revi ew

. " ). 3 pr esume that the t ri al cour t di d not abus e i ts disc re ti o n in deny ing the moti on for cont inu ance if the mov ant fai ls to pr ov ide an a ff idavit in supp ort of the moti on. Vi ll egas , 711 S. W .2d a t 626

. III

. A N AL Y S IS By h er s ol e i s s ue , J en ni fer

c on te nd s t ha t s he h ad s uffi c i en t cause f or a cont inu ance. How ev er , Jenni fer's moti on for cont inu ance w as not v er ified or su ppor ted 1 by aff ida v it

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 25 1. Beca use Je nnif er did no t com ply w ith the af f idavit requireme nt of

rule 251 , it is presu me d tha t the trial court d id n ot ab use its discretio n in deny ing the moti on. See V il leg as , 711 S.W .2d a t 626 ; see als o H awthor ne v . G uenther

, 917 S. W .2d 9 24, 9 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 19 96, w ri t den ied ) (e x pla ini ng that i f a par ty is unav ail abl e because of ill ness , the party

m ust att ach an affidav it from a doct or ); Ol iv ar es

v. Stat e , 693 S.W .2d 486, 490 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1985, w ri t di sm' d) ( per cu ri am) ("I n the absen ce of a suppo rt ing aff ida v it [from medic al per sonne l] that it w ould en d a n g er app ellant 's health to appe ar in court, w e can not saythe trial court ab used its discretion." ). Jenni fer al so all eg es that suffici ent c ause w as show n becau se, in her moti on, s he state d tha t she did not ha v e en ough tim e to pre pare f or the trial du e to m edica l reasons. How ev e r, "denial of a moti on for cont inu ance based on a l ack of ti me to pr epar e for tr ial

w il l not b e found an abuse of dis cr eti on." See Hatteb erg v. Hatte berg , 933 S.W .2d 5 22,4

527 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 4, no w ri t). Therefor e, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial

cour t di d not abus e i ts dis cr eti on i n deny ing Je nni fer's moti on for cont inu ance. W e ov er ru le Jenni fer's so le is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e affi r m.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 1st day

of Aug ust , 200 8.