1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-18-00226-CV

__________________

ALBERT HADNOT SR., Appellant

V.

CHEAD ADAMS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 35836

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Albert Hadnot Sr. appeals the judgment dismissing his lawsuit against Chead 

Adams after Hadnot failed to appear for trial. In his appeal, Hadnot argues his case 

should be reinstated because it has merit. But he did not argue he was deprived of 

due process, nor does he argue the trial court abused its discretion by failing to 

reinstate his case based on his post-judgment motion to change venue. After 

reviewing the arguments Hadnot presents in his brief, we affirm. 
2

Background

In September 2016, Albert Hadnot Sr. sued Chead Adams on claims under the 

wrongful death and survival statutes.

1 Acting pro se, the petition Hadnot filed alleges 

that his girlfriend and their child, Albert Hadnot Jr., died in a fire that broke out 

while his son and girlfriend were asleep. Hadnot woke up in time to escape, but 

despite his efforts, he failed to save the others from the fire. Hadnot alleged Adams

owned the home, and that Adams’ negligence caused the injuries and deaths of his 

girlfriend and son. 

In October 2016, Adams answered the suit. Just over two months later, Adams 

filed a counterclaim, alleging that Hadnot caused the fire when he fell asleep while 

smoking on a couch. 

On Monday, April 23, 2018, the trial court called the case to trial. Hadnot 

failed to appear. On May 3, 2018, the trial court dismissed Hadnot’s claims with 

prejudice, noting in its judgment that the case had previously been dismissed after 

an earlier setting and then refiled. The trial court dismissed all other claims without 

prejudice.

 1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 71.001-.012 (West 2008 & Supp.) 

(Wrongful Death), §§ 71.021-.051 (West 2008 & Supp.) (Survival).
3

Do the merits matter?

In his appeal, Hadnot argues his case has merit because a fire investigator’s 

report supports his argument that Adams breached his duties as a landlord. Hadnot

also accused Adams of attempting to hire someone after the fire to kill him. But 

Hadnot never attacked the process the trial court followed in dismissing his case in 

the trial court or in his appeal.

2

 

The scope of our review for appeals limits what we can decide to those

arguments the appellant preserved at trial and presented in his brief.3 Here, Hadnot

argues his wrongful death and survival claims should not have been dismissed 

because they have merit, but the record shows the trial court dismissed the case not 

for lack of merit but because Hadnot failed to appear when the court called the case 

for trial.4 Rule 165a(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a court to 

 2 The trial court’s record shows that Hadnot had notice of the trial setting. In 

a fax Hadnot sent the court in November 2017, Hadnot requested the trial setting. 

The trial court’s clerk notified him immediately by return fax that the case would be 

set on the court’s docket for the week beginning April 23, 2018. The record also 

shows that Hadnot requested bench warrants for earlier trial settings. But the record 

does not show that he requested a bench warrant, or sought to continue the April 23, 

2018, setting.

3 See Pat Baker Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998).

4 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 247 (“Every suit shall be tried when it is called, unless 

continued or postposed to a future day or placed at the end of the docket to be called 

again for trial in its regular order.”).
4

dismiss a case if a party seeking affirmative relief fails to appear for a trial setting of

which the party had notice.5 Hadnot does not claim he never received notice of the 

April 2018 setting. While Hadnot filed a post-judgment motion seeking a change of 

venue, he never complained in that motion that the trial court should have reinstated

his case.6 Finally, Hadnot has not argued either here or in the court below that his 

case should not have been dismissed with prejudice.

7

Hadnot failed to complain in his appeal about the reason the trial court 

dismissed his case, which was because he failed to appear for trial. Since the question 

of whether the claims he filed against Adams have merit was not the basis for the 

dismissal, Hadnot left the reason for the trial court’s ruling unchallenged in his brief.

We overrule the issue he presents on appeal because it does not attack the basis on 

which the trial court dismissed his case. For the reasons explained above, the trial 

court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

 5 Id. 165a(1).

6 See generally id. 165a.

7 To obtain a reversal for an alleged error dismissing a case with prejudice, 

the appellant must preserve the error in the trial court and argue it in the appeal. See

Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008); Bridwell v. Mulder, 315 S.W.3d 

657, 659 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). 
5

_________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on November 19, 2019

Opinion Delivered January 23, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.