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, Appellees

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 Richter1, and Justice Rosenberg2

Opinion by Justice Rosenberg

Appellees, Eustolia Rios and Leonardo Rios (the 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, the justice court entered judgment in favor of the Rioses awarding them 

possession of the Property. McCrary timely appealed to the county court at law and, as 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 possession of the Property and forfeiting the $500 bond to them. McCrary appeals the county 

court at law’s forfeiture of the appeal bond. 

DISCUSSION

Although parties to civil litigation may represent themselves, pro se litigants must adhere

to our rules of evidence 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. TEX. R. APP. 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. TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.1 (d), (g), and (i). A brief fails if it lacks supportive citations to the record or to 

relevant, applicable legal authority. TEX.R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (stating 

references to irrelevant or sweeping legal authority do not comply with the rule). If a brief 

complies, we submit the appeal for review and decision on the merits; however, if it does not, we 

may dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1;

Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990). “When an appellant fails 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. TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. Therefore, 

McCrary’s brief fails to comply with our substantive briefing 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 TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. 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 party 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. TEX. R. CIV. P.

510.9(a). The bond provides an appellee security by guaranteeing the appellant will pay the 

judgment and court costs if appellant loses. TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(b). The 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. TEX. R. CIV. 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 TEX. R. CIV. P. 752, now TEX. R. CIV.

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 through 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.

McCrary insists the county court at law erred by forfeiting the bond to the Rioses because their 

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 motion to the trial court. TEX. R.

APP. 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. See TEX. R.

CIV. 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 because we lack a reporter’s record or statements 

of facts; 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 [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ) (affirming forfeiture of entire bond in forcible 

entry and detainer appeal in the absence of a reporter’s record because court assumes “trial court 

made all necessary findings to support its judgment.”).

We conclude McCrary’s brief failed to comply with the requirements of our appellate rules, 

despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. Regardless, her argument lacks merit. We 

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 Justice 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 13th day of November, 2019.