Court Opinion

ID: 9898936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 16:11:56.155568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:51.430637
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-23-00037-CV

       IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
    AMANDA CARTER AND PHILIP CARTER AND
   IN THE INTEREST OF K.C. AND K.C., CHILDREN

         On Appeal from the 278th District Court
                Madison County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 21-17075

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Philip Carter appeals the final decree of divorce entered by the 278th Judicial District

Court of Madison County.1 Philip asserts that the trial court erred by (1) not allowing him to

take the deposition of Amanda Carter, (2) not granting him a continuance, (3) denying him a trial

by jury, and (4) proceeding with the trial in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights because

Philip had pending criminal charges. Because Philip failed to preserve his second and fourth

issues and failed to adequately brief his first and third issues, we will affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

I.       Issues Not Preserved

         In Philip’s second issue, he complains that the trial court erred by not granting him a trial

continuance “when multiple criminal charges, directly related to all the issues presented in the

divorce, [were] still pending in the same trial court.” In a related issue, Philip’s fourth issue

complains that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment rights by proceeding with the trial

when “Phillip [sic] . . . could not testify due to current pending [criminal] charges.”2

1
 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We are unaware of
any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
 Philip asserts that he “never actually asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to a question” and that the
trial court ruled that Philip “would have to either make a blanket assertion of the privilege or waive it if he wished to
continue testifying at all.” However, the record shows that Philip repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege
in response to individual questions asked by Amanda and that the trial court never required Philip to make a blanket
assertion of privilege or to waive the privilege if he wanted to testify. Rather, the trial court assured itself that Philip
understood that he could assert his Fifth Amendment right not to answer on a question-by-question basis. See In re
T.B., 594 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, no pet.) (“[B]lanket assertions of the privilege in civil cases are
not permitted. Instead, the privilege must be asserted on a question-by-question basis.” (citation omitted)).
                                                             2
       Under Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

       As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must
       show that:

               (1)     the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request,
               objection, or motion that:

                      (A)     stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party
                      sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the
                      trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were
                      apparent from the context; and

                      (B)   complied with the requirements of the Texas Rules of
                      Evidence or the Texas Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure; and

               (2)    the trial court:

                      (A)    ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly
                      or implicitly; or

                      (B)   refused to rule on the request, objection, or motion, and the
                      complaining party objected to the refusal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).     “Even constitutional complaints can be waived absent a timely

objection.” In re T.W., No. 10-22-00210-CV, 2022 WL 17834387, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco

Dec. 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Zorrilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC, 469 S.W.3d 143,

155 n.10 (Tex. 2015)). Further, “[t]o preserve error for appellate review, a party’s argument on

appeal must comport with its argument in the trial court.” Foust v. Baylor Scott & White Health,

No. 10-20-00095-CV, 2022 WL 17341009, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 30, 2022, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (citing In re T.B., 594 S.W.3d at 782).

       In the trial court, Philip filed a motion for a continuance in which he asserted that the

continuance was needed in order to take Amanda’s and her mother’s depositions and to

                                                3
“complete discover[y] of issues concerning the claims and defenses of the parties.”3 Before the

final hearing, Philip again asserted his motion for a continuance, maintaining that it was needed

to complete discovery. Philip’s brief on appeal contains no citation to the record that shows he

asserted that a continuance should have been granted because he had multiple criminal charges

pending related to the issues in the divorce. Because Philip’s complaint on appeal does not

comport with the complaint he made in the trial court, his second issue is not preserved for

appellate review. See Foust, 2022 WL 17341009, at *2. We overrule Philip’s second issue.

         The record also shows that Philip never asserted a complaint in the trial court that the

final hearing should not have proceeded because it violated his Fifth Amendment rights or that

Philip was unable to testify about the characterization of property or other matters without

waiving his Fifth Amendment rights.4 Because Philip did not make this complaint in the trial

court, his fourth issue was not preserved for appellate review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). We

overrule his fourth issue.

II.      Waived Issues

         “Our briefing rules instruct that a brief ‘contain a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities.’” Lion Copolymer Holdings, LLC v.

Lion Polymers, LLC, 614 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting TEX. R. APP. P.

3
 The motion for a continuance was not supported by an affidavit. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 251 (providing that a
continuance shall not be “granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or
by operation of law”).
4
 In his brief, Philip complains that he could not testify about “the majority of Amanda Carter’s allegations” or about
“the characterization of property and debts” because of the trial court’s ruling that required him to make a blanket
assertion of privilege or to waive the privilege if he wanted to testify. As we previously noted, the record shows that
the trial court did not make such a ruling.
                                                          4
38.1(i)). However, we are to construe briefs “liberally, but reasonably, . . . so that the right to

appeal is not lost by waiver.” Id. (quoting Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tex. 2019)

(per curiam)). To that end, we are “to look not simply at the wording of parties’ issues, but also

the arguments, evidence, and citations relied on by those parties to determine which issues the

parties intended to and actually briefed.” Id. at 733 (citing St. John Missionary Baptist Church v.

Flakes, 595 S.W.3d 211, 214 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam)). Nevertheless, “[a] brief must provide

citations or argument and analysis for the contentions[,] and failure to do this can result in

waiver.” RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018) (citing TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(i), 38.2(a)(1); Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496, 500 (Tex. 2015)); see

In re T.B., 641 S.W.3d 535, 539 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. denied).

       In his first issue, Philip complains that the trial court erred by not allowing him to take

Amanda’s deposition. In his third issue, he complains that the trial court erred by denying his

right to trial by jury. In his brief, Philip asserts that the trial court refused to compel Amanda’s

deposition, but he failed to provide record citations that support this assertion. He also failed to

provide case authority or analysis as to the trial court’s alleged error in not allowing him to take

Amanda’s deposition. Although he provided a record citation that showed that the trial court

granted Amanda’s motion to strike Philip’s jury demand, he failed to provide case authority or

analysis as to the trial court’s alleged error in striking his jury demand. As a result, we find that

Philip’s first and third issues are inadequately briefed and are, consequently, waived. See RSL

Funding, LLC, 569 S.W.3d at 126. We overrule Philip’s first and third issues.

                                                 5
III.   Disposition

       Because all of Philip’s appellate issues were either waived or not preserved, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                                                  Jeff Rambin
                                                  Justice

Date Submitted:        November 8, 2023
Date Decided:          November 15, 2023

                                              6