NO. 07-02-0398-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B DECEMBER 17, 2004

______________________________ IN THE MA

TTER OF T HE MARRI AGE OF JAMES D. DURHAM, JR. AND DEBORAH LYNN DURHAM

_________________________________ FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTE R COUNTY; NO. 63046 -D; HONOR ABLE GOR DON GREE N, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
Deborah Lynn Marino, f/k/a Deborah Lynn Durham, appealsfrom t he trial court’s rulings on cros s-motion s for enforcement of a final decree divorcing her from James D. Durham. We affirm in part and dismiss in part for want of jurisdiction

. BACKGROUND
On November 8, 200 1, a decre e of divorce was signed in the divorce proceeding between Deborah Lynn Du rham (now Deborah Lynn Mari no) and J ames D. D urham.-2-

Motions for enforcement and pleadings filed by Marino during the months fo llowing entry of the Novembe r 8th decree d id not qu estion th e finali tyof that decree, but rather sought enforcement of it. In addition to seeking enforcement of the decreeby her motions, Marino also claimed damages resulting from an alleged assault by Durham and sou ght the value of certai n propert

y which Durham al legedly conceal ed durin g penden cy of the divorce.
On July 1, 2002, following a hearing conducted on two separate days, the trial judge signed separate orders ruling on Marino’ s motion for enforcement and Durham’s motion for enforcement. The order on Durha m’s mot ion contained a Mother Hubbard clause stating that all relief requested an d not expressly granted was denied. The o rder on Marino’s motion did not contain a Mother Hubbard clause. The order on Marino’s motion specificallyindicated that Ma rino’s a ffirmativeclaimsfor additional property and damages would no t be hear

d in the proceedi ng. Marin o appeal ed.
We have pre viously dismisse d, for wan t of jurisd iction, t hat part of Marino’s appeal challenging the decree of divorce. We remanded the remainder of her appeal to the trial court for clarification of the court’s July 1, 2002 orders. Upon remand the trial court entered
a Clarification Order and Order for Severan ce which severed Marino’sclaimsfor affirmative relief from her motion for

enforceme nt, direc

ted that t he claim s be docke ted as a s eparate suitunder a different cause n umbe r, and cl arified t hat the Ju ly 1, 200 2 orders were intended to constitute final orders as to all issues and all parties, except for Marin o’s clai ms for affirmati ve relie f. The co urt c larified that it had found Marino’s claims for affirmative relief were improper in an enforcement proceeding and shou ld have been severed. The clarification and severance order made the July 1, 2002 orders final and appealable

. See1 Further reference to a rule of appellate procedure will be by reference to “TRAP ___.” -3- T EX . R. A PP . P. 27.2, 44.4; 1 McNally v. Guevara , 52 S.W.3 d 195, 19 6 (Tex. 2 001); American Home Prods. Corp. v. Clark , 38 S.W.3d 92 , 97 (Tex . 2000). To the ex tent that those cla ims which were severed by

the trial court’s October 29, 2004 clarification and severance order
are presented on appeal, they are not the subject of a fina l and appealable order and we will dismiss the appeal as to them for want of jurisdiction. Appearing pro se , Marino initially presented three issues. Her first issue challenged the validit

y of the N ovember 8 , 2001 decree of divorce. Our prior dismissal of Marino’s challe nge to the dec ree of divorce effectively disposed of her first issue and we will not address t hat issue

further.
Her second issue challenged the July 1, 2002 order on Durham’s motion for enforceme nt. Her third issue challenged the July 1, 2002 order on her own motion fo r enforceme nt.
ISSUES TWO AND THREE
Marino’s second issue urged that the July1, 2002 order granting Durham’s motion for enforcement was not “proper and in accordance with app licable law.” In support of her is sue, she argues that Durham’s motion sought enforcement of an all eged se ttlemen t agreement not agreed to byMarino, and that the motion was based on complai nts which
were barred b y the doc trine of res judi

cata . The only reference to authority she makes as2 Further re ference to a rule o f civil p rocedure will beby refere nce to “TR CP ___.”

-4- part of he r res judicata

argument is to T EX . R. C IV . P. 91, 2 which is inapposite as the rule addresses special exce pti ons. Shegeneral ly refers to evide nce and testimony from a January 2002 hearing, and an order dated January 11, 2002 which wa s based o n the January h earing, a s the bas is for he r res judi cata claim.
Her third issue mirrors her second issue, except thethird issue asserts that the July 1, 2002 order denying her motion for enforceme nt was no t proper a nd in ac cordancewith applicable law. One part of her third issue urges that the Jul y 1storder, as directed to her motion, was not a final order because it did not dispose of her affirmative claims seeking additional propert

y and damages. Marino refers us to Lehmann v. Har-Co n Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001), to support this part of her argument. This part of Ma rino’s th ird issue has been disposed of by the trial court’s Clarification Order and Order of Severance, and we n eed not a ddress it

. The remainder of

her third issue presents argument that the July 1, 2002 order on her motion was in error because: (1) the order enforced an alleged agreement between the parties which she did not agree to; (2) the order was barred by res judi cata based on the January 2002 he aring; (3 ) Durham faile d to serve a copy of his proposed order of enforcement on Marino as required by TRCP 21a; (4) funds awarded to Durham from the registry of t he court represented Marino’s interest in the homestead, constituting exempt property, and the award failed to comply with app licable Texas law regarding exempt property; and (5) there was no evidence, and in some instances insufficient eviden ce, to3 The partial reporter’s record includes transcripts of hearings on August 21, 2001,

October 4, 2001, October 11, 2002 and December 12, 2002. The2001 hearings predated -5- support the court’s order as to attorney’s fees, offset for property in Marino’s possession, damage to the marital home, awarding of property allegedly i n Marino’s possession but which was not, awarding money for a watch which she alleges never existed and the court costs award. Other than the one reference to TRCP 21aas requiring service of a proposed order, however, Marino does not cite any authority for standards of review, her positions,
or the legal doctrines and theories espoused, nor does she explain the absence of citation to author ity.
Prose litigants are held to t he same standards as l icensed attorneys and must complywith applicable laws and rules of proce dure. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 18 1, 184-85 (Tex. 19 78) (Rule s of Civi l Proced ure); Clem ens v. Allen , 47 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.Ap p.–Amar illo 20 00, no pe t.) (Rules of Appell ate Proce dure); Holt v. F.F. Enters. , 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. de nied) . If an argument in an appellate brief contains no citations to authority or expl anation for lack of such citations, t he issuemay be de emed to h ave been waived. See Fredonia State Bank v . General Am. Life Ins. Co. , 881 S.W. 2d 279, 2 84 (Tex. 1994); Knie v. Piskun , 23 S.W.3d 455, 460 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2000, pet. denied). Marino fails to cite authority to sup por t her contenti ons and f

ails toexplai n th e absenc e of such citation s. She h as faile d to adequately brief any of her arguments and we deem them to have been waived. Moreover, the partial reporter’s record Ma rino pres ents in regard to the July 1, 2002 orders 3 con tains the trial court’s oral ruling made on June 7, 2002, following two day s o fentry

of the di vorce dec ree. TheOctober 2 002 and December 2 002 hearing s occurred after entry of the orders from which Marino is appe alin g and were hearings on Durham’s amended mo tion for enforcement which was filed in September 2002 , also after entry o f the order

s from whi ch Marino

is now a ppealin g.

-6- hearing on the cross-motio ns for enf orcement, but not the evidence and testimony p resented a t the hearing, and the partial reporter’s record also contains four pages of excerpts of Marino’s testimony from the hearing on which the January 11, 2002 order was based and whi ch Marino asserts is res judi

cata of Durham’s motion for enforcement. When
an appellant requests only a partial r eporter’s record and the record does not include a statement of points or iss ues t o be pres ented on appeal, see TRAP 34.6(c)(1), the reviewing court presumes that the missing portions of the record contain relevant evidence and that the omitted evidence supports the trial court’s judgmen t. See Christiansen v. Prezelski , 782 S.W.2d 842, 84 3-4 4 (Tex. 1990) (discussing the necessity of strict
com plianc e with form er TRAP 53(d), pre decessor to TRAP34.6(c)); CMM Grain Co. v. Ozgunduz , 991 S.W.2 d 437, 43 9 (Tex.A pp.–Fort Worth 199 9, no pet .). Both the request for a partial reporter's record and the statement of points or issues to be pr esente d on appeal must be ti mely file d and ap pear in t he appel late record. CMM Grain Co. , 991 S.W.2d 43 9.
The appellate record presented in this case does not contain a statement of points
or issues to be presented on appeal, which is required b y TRAP 34.6( c)(1). Thus, we presume t hat the missing record supports the trial court’s rulings and orders, and t ha t Marino was not harmed by the ruli ngs and o rders. Weoverr ule her secon d and thi rd issues.-7- CONCLUS ION
We dismiss, for

want of jurisdiction, the appeal as to Marino’s cla ims for affirmative relief thatwere severed by the trial court’s October 29, 2004 Cla rification Order and Order for Severance. Having dismissed or overruled all of Marino’s issuesand contentions, we
a f firm the July 1, 2002 orders of the trial court as clarified by the trial court’s October 29, 2004 ord er.

Phil Johnson Chief Justice