### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 05 -00 551 -CV

Edit h F ont e not , A ppe lla nt

v. Margar et Hanus, Michael Hanu s, and William S. Carve r, III , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN40351 6 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt E dit h F on te no t, r e pr e s e n t i n g

h e r s e l f p r o s e , s u e d

a p p e l l e e s M a

r g a r e t H a nu s, Mic ha e l H a nu s, a nd

Willi a m S. Ca rv e r, I I I , s e e kin g a jud g me nt d e c lari ng that sh e ha d th e ri g ht t o

use a r oad on appe llees’ pr operty to acces s h er la

nd. The c ase w as set for a jury trial on May 23, 2005, but on May 11, 2005, appellee s filed a motion for continuanc e and to strike the May 23 setting, stating that Fontenot ha d not met the require ments for a jury trial or paid the jury fee and that the ca se had not be en re fe rr ed t o pretria l mediation as requir ed by the Travis County

L ocal Rule s . O n M a y 1 9 , a h e a r in g w a s h e ld o n th e mo ti o n , a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d th e motion for continuance ; it appear s that Fontenot pa id the jury fee that same day . On May 23, Fontenot did not appea r at the 9:00 a .m. docket ca ll, and the t rial court signe d a default judgme nt ag ainst her, de ny ing F on te no t a c c e ss t o h e r p ro pe rt y a c ro ss a pp e lle e s’ pr op e rt

y . On June 22 , th ir

ty da y s a ft e r t he de fa ult jud g me nt w a s si g ne d, F on te no t f ile d a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l, a sse rt ingthat sh e ha d a rr ive d late toAppellee s have not filed a brief in this ca se. 1 2 c ourt on May 23 , o nly to l e a rn that th e do cket had been c a lle d p ro mpt ly a t 9: 00 a .m. a nd

that a de fa ult jud g me nt h a d b e e n g ra nte d in he r c a se . Sh e e xpla ine d th a t sh e mis un de rs too d th e do c ke t- c a ll proce ss and aske d to have he r ca se re instated. Appellee s filed a r esponse to F ontenot’s motion, and afte r a he aring , the trial cour t denied Fo n t en ot’s motion for new tria l. I t is from the denial of he r motion for new tria l tha t F ontenot appea ls, c omplaining lar g ely that the trial cour

t erre d in refusing to g ra nt h e r a ne w tri a l. We modify

the trial cour

t’s defa ult judg ment to refle ct instead a dismiss al 1 for wa nt of prosec ution and aff

irm the judg ment as modified. The trial c ourt enter ed a “ defa ult judgment” pur

porting to decide the merits of the

case. See T e x. R. Ci v . P. 2 3 9

. H o w e v e r , w h e n a p la in ti f f f a il s to a p p e a r , th e tr ia l c o u rt may not enter a def ault judgme nt ag ainst her a nd may only dism i s s t he ca

use without prejudice

. Freem an v. Free man , 3 2 7 S. W. 2 d 4 2 8 , 4 3 1 ( T e x. 1 9 5 9 ) ( “ T h e la w o f th is s tate d o e s n o t a

u th o r iz e a def endant to take a def

ault judgme nt which adjudica tes ag ainst the plaintiff the mer its of his suit.”); Smock v. Fische l , 2 0 7 S

. W.2d 891, 892 (Tex. 1948) (“I t is a well-esta blished rule that whe n a plaintiff fails to appea

r and prosec ute hi s case , the court can not try the plaintiff’s c ause of

action, bu t the on ly re me dy is to dis mi ss th e same .” ); Sta te v . H e rre ra , 25 S.W .3d 326, 328 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). B eca use F ontenot failed to a

ppear at the May 23 docket c all, the trial court c ould have dismissed her c ase f or wa nt of prosec ution. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 165a( 1). The court wa s not, howeve r, authoriz ed to enter a default judgme nt ag ainst her. The ref ore, w e modify the def ault judgme nt to reflec t a dismissal under rule 165a (1). See Tex. R. App. P . 43.2(b), 43.3. As fo r F on te no t’ s is sues on app e a l, w e no te that F on te no t’ s b ri e f d oe s n ot c omp ly with the rules of appellate proce dure. Aside from ref err ing to Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. ,Fontenot ha s attache d to her brie f an aff idavit attempting to explain what she c hara cter izes 2 as inconsistent prac tices. Howe ver, she did not prese nt this affidavit befor e the tria l court, and w e there fore may

not consider it. See Cherqui v. W estheime r St. Festival Corp. , 116 S.W .3d 337, 342 n.2 (Tex. A

pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2003, no pet.). We note, howe ver, tha t the aff idavit does not show any improper or

inconsistent prac tices by the trial cour

t. 3 133 S.W .2d 124 (Tex. 1939) , for its discussion of when a motion for new tria l should be g rante d, she cites no authority and prese nts virtua lly no argument. We r ecog nize that F ontenot is repre senting herse lf pro se, a

nd we ther efor e will a ttempt to read he r brief liberally to addre ss the arguments she prese nts. Howeve r, pro se litigants must comply with the same proc edura l ru l es followed by

re pr e se nted p artie s, a nd

we c a nn ot h old

pr o s e lit ig a nts to a

dif fe re nt s tand a rd

tha n a pp lie d to repr esente d parties. Mansfield State Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184-85 (Te x . 1978).

F on te no t li sts nin e “ iss ue s pre se nte d, ” bu t doe s not pr e se nt ar g ume nt on al l is su e s, instead foc using w hat little arg ument she make s on whether the trial cour

t should have g rante d her mot ion fo r n e w tri a l. H ow e ve r, F on te no t di d n ot p re se nt a ny e vid e nc e be fo re the tr ia l c ou rt to support her a ssertions that h er failure to appea r wa s unintentional and not the result of c onscious i n d i ff er en ce , ei t h er

i n an af fi d av i t at t ac h ed t o h er m o t i o n o r t h ro u gh s wo rn t es t i m o n y at t h e h ea ri n g. Thus, t h e t ri al court did not abuse its discretion in deny ing F ontenot’s motion for new tr ial. See Director, St. Employe es W orkers’ Comp. D iv. v. Ev ans , 889 S.W .2d 266, 269 (Tex. 1994). As for F onteno t ’s unbriefe d issues, we will brief ly addre ss them as best we understand the m. Fontenot asserts t hat t he trial court used inconsistent docket c all proce dures, but do e s not expl a in how the tr ia l court e rr e d an d ha s not sho wn a ny inc on sis te nt p ra c tic e s. I nstead, the 2 he a ri ng be fo re th e tr ia l c ou rt sh ow s th a t F on te no t a dmi tte d to mis un de rs tand ingthe do c ke t c a ll proce ss. Fontenot fur

ther c omplains that the trial court should not have a llowed appe llees to rely on

an unpublished case from this Court. Howeve r, the case to w hich appellees re fe rre d, LimestoneUnder the rules of

appellate proce dure, opinions ar e no long er “ publishe d ” or 3

“ u np u b li s h e d

. ” I n s te a d , th e y a r e d e s ig n a te d “ me mo r a n d u m o p in io n s ” o r “ o p inions.” S ee Tex. R. App. P . 47.2(a)

. 4 Construction, Inc. v. Summit Commer ci a l In d u strial Properti es, Inc

. , is a published opinion. See 143 S.W .3d 5 3 8 (T ex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). As for F ontenot’s complaints related to the 3 tr ia l c ou rt ’s a llo wi ng a

pp e lle e s to pr e se nt e vid e nc e of F on te no t’ s all e g e d co nd uc t dur ingthe laws uit and its ref usal to allow her to pr esent e vidence of appe llees’ conduct, s he has not briefed this issue

or sh ow n th at th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in its mana g e me nt o f t

he he a ri ng on

he r m oti on

fo r n e w tri a l. Finally , Fontenot a sserts that the trial court erre d in telling he r she c ould not refile he r lawsuit, which she states amounted to a dismissal with pre judice. B eca

use we have modifie d the judg ment to refle ct a dismissal for wa

nt of prosec ution, rather tha n a def ault judgme nt, any

erro r in the trial court’ s statement has be en addr essed.

The trial c ourt err ed in g ranting a defa ult judg ment in f

avor of appellee s, rathe r than sim ply dis mis sin g the su it und e r r ule 16 5( a ). We t

he re fo re mod if

y th e ju dgme nt t o r e fl e c t a dis mis sa l f

or wa nt of pr os e c uti on . F on te no t ha s no t sh ow n re ve rs ibl e e rr or on the tr ia l c ourt ’s pa rt , and we there fore aff

irm the judg ment as modified.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: Aug ust 17, 2007