DISMISSED and Opinion Filed November 13, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01395
- CV LINDA K. MCCRARY , Appellant

V. EUSTOLIA P. RIOS AND LEONARDO M. RIOS , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC1800388 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Richter 1 , and Justice Rosenberg 2

Opinion by Justice Rosenberg Appellees , Eustolia Rio s and Leonardo Rios ( t he Rioses ) , brought a successful eviction
action against Appellant , Linda McCrary ( McCrary ). In her sole point of error, McCrary appeals
the county court at law’s adverse final judgment forfeiting the appeal bond

. Because McCrary’s brief is deficient, we dismiss her appeal.
BACKGROUND In July 2018, the Rioses purchased realty (the Property) in which McCrary was living at
the time

. In August 2018, the Rioses sued for eviction after twice notifying McCrary to vacate the Property

. After trial, t he justice court entered judgment in favor of the Rioses awarding them possession of the P roperty. McCrary timely appealed to the county court at law and, a s ordered by

1 The Hon. Martin Richter, Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Retired, sitting by assignment.
2 The Hon. Barbara Rosenberg, Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, sitting by assignment.– 2

–

the justice court , deposited a $500 cash appeal bond

. After trial de novo, the county court at law
entered a final judgment , findings of fact , and conclusion of law in favor of the Rioses awarding
them posse ssion of the P roperty and forfeiting the $500 bond to them

. McCrary appeals the county court at law’s forfeiture of the appeal bond

. DISCUSSION Although p arties to civil litigation may represent themselves , pro se litigants must adhere

to our rules of evide nce and procedure, including the appellate rules of procedure. Bolling v.
Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. , 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2010, no pet .)

. While

we do not require rigid adherence regarding the form of a brief , we examine briefs closely for compliance with rules that govern the content of appellate briefs

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38.1 ; Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 895

. Our appellate rules require briefs to state concisely the nature , pertinent facts, and argument of their complaint with appropriate citations to legal authorities and the record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (d), (g), and (i)

. A brief fails if it lacks supportive citation s to the record or to relevant, applicable legal authority. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (g), (i); Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 8 96 ( stating

r eferences to irrelevant or sweeping legal authorit y do not comply with the rule )

. If a brief complies, we submit the appe al for review and decision on the merits ; however, if it does not , we may dismiss the appeal

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 ; Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 895

- 96. Additionally, an appellant must show reversible error by presenting a sufficient appellate
record consisting of a clerk’s record and, if necessary, a reporter’s record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.1; Christiansen v. Prezelski , 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990). “ When an appellant fail s to bring a reporter’s record , an appellate court must presume the evidence presented was sufficient to support
the trial court’s order

. ” Willms v. Americas Tire Co. , 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006, pet. denied). After providing notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the absence of a– 3

–

reporter’ s record , an appellate court may consider and decide issues that do not require a reporter’s
record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c). We previously notified McCrary that her brief was deficient , in that it lacked both record and legal citations , and ordered her to file an amended brief that complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. McCrary’s amended brief is also deficient because it is likewise wholly
devoid of citations to the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(g); Bolling , 315 S.W.3d . at 896. Although it cites some legal authority, the cited law is irrelevant to the particular arguments McCrary raises on appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i); Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 896. Therefore, McCrary’s brief fails to comply with our substantive bri efing requirements

. Even if we were to consider the merits of her claim , we would find no reversible error. We ordered this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record because, despite our directives, McCrary failed to provide a reporter’s record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c). Thus, we presume the evidence presented supports the county court at law’s judgment and we may consider and decide McCrary’s sole issue if possible without the record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c); Willms , 190 S.W.3d at 803 (Tex. App

. — Dallas 2006, pet. denied)

. In her sole point of error , McCrary contends the county court at law erred by forfeiting the $500 bond to the Rioses

. A p arty may appeal a justice court’s judgment in an eviction case by filing an appeal bond , cash deposit , or pauper’s affidavit with the justice court

. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 510.9( a ). The bond provide s an appellee security by guaranteeing the a ppellant will pay the judgment and court costs if appellant loses

. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 510.9(b ) . T he county court at law may award the prevailing party recovery up to the full amount of the appeal bond to cover the judgment
and costs

. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 510.9(b), 510.11; A.V.A. Servs. v. Parts Indus. Corp. , 949 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 1997, no writ) (citing former T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 752, now T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 510.11)

. There is no error when the “ judgment forfeits the full amount of the appeal bond in the– 4

–

absence of a formal award of damages since the trial court may afford such damages in forcible entry and detainer cases throug h the forfeiture of the bond. ” A.V.A. Servs. , 949 S.W.2d at 853. Here, in connection with her appeal, McCrary complied with the justice court’s order by filing a $500 cash bond as security for any costs and damages that might be adjudged against her

. Mc Crary insists the county court at law erred by forfeiting the bond to the Rioses because the ir pleading sought only possession of the Property. Generally, a party must preserve an error for review by making, on the record, a timely request, objection, or m otion to the trial court. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). A claim that the judgment is not supported by the pleadings may not be raised for the first time on appeal

. Longhurst v. Clark , No. 01

- 07

- 00226

- CV, 2008 WL 3876175, at *29 n. 17 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist

. ] Aug. 21, 2008, no pet.) (mem.op.) ( finding appellant
waived this claim because he failed to raise it at trial)

. We find no error in the award of the full amount of the bond to the Rioses because they were entitled to it as prevailing parties

. S ee T EX

. R.
C IV

. P. 510.9 (b), 510.11; A.V.A. Servs. , 949 S.W.2d at 854

. Moreover, we have no basis to
conclude McCrary preserved this error for review b ecause we lack a reporter’s record or statements
of fact s ; therefore, we presume the county court at law was awarding the full amount of the bond as damages. A.V.A. Servs. , 949 S.W.2d at 853

- 54 ; see also Bobbit v. Womble , 708 S.W.2d 558, 561 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist. ] 1986, no writ ) (affirming forfeiture of entire bond in forcible entry and detainer appe al in the absence of a reporter ’s record because court assumes “trial court made all necessary findings to support its judgment.” )

. We conclude M cCrary’s brief failed to comply with the requirements of our appellate rules, despite being given noti ce and an opportunity to do so. Regardless, her argument lacks merit

. W e dismiss her appeal.– 5

–

181395f.p05 Barbara Rosenberg BARBARA ROSENBERG JUSTICE, ASSIGNED– 6

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
LINDA K. MCCRARY, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 01395

- CV V.
EUSTOLIA P. RIOS AND LEONARDO M. RIOS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC1800388. Opinion delivered by Justic e Rosenberg. Chief Justice Burns and Justice Richter participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee EUSTOLIA P. RIOS AND LEONARDO M. RIOS recover their costs of this appeal from appellant LINDA K. MCCRARY.

Judgment entered this 13 th day of November, 2019.