Court Opinion

ID: 9956112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 08:10:36.935176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:32.998706
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-22-00276-CV
     ___________________________

      MAUREEN SCOTT, Appellant

                     V.

    WAYNE KEITH SMITH, Appellee

  On Appeal from the 211th District Court
         Denton County, Texas
      Trial Court No. 20-7037-211

 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Wallach, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant Maureen Scott appeals from the final decree of divorce dissolving

her marriage to Appellee Wayne Keith Smith. Because she has inadequately briefed

her issue, we will affirm.

                                       Background

       In September 2020, Scott filed for divorce from Smith. After Scott’s attorney

was allowed to withdraw in February 2022, Scott did not retain new counsel,1 and she

represented herself at trial. After the trial, the trial court signed a final decree awarding

Scott no spousal support, ordering Smith to pay Scott $655 a month in child support,

awarding Smith the parties’ former marital residence, and awarding Scott a home that

she had purchased after moving out of the marital residence. The decree further

ordered Scott to pay Smith $35,996,2 plus $1,400 that the court had previously

ordered her to pay in attorney’s fees.

                                         Discussion

       In one issue, Scott argues that the trial court abused its discretion “with regards

to its rulings in the instant matter as it pertains to child support, spousal support, and

equitable distribution of assets.” However, Scott’s brief does not provide accurate

citations to the record to support the factual assertions on which she bases her

       At trial, Scott stated that she could not afford an attorney.
       1

       Smith had requested at least $56,000 in damages for necessary repairs to the
       2

former marital residence.

                                             2
arguments. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g). Although she does provide citations to four

pages of the record, the pages to which she cites have no logical connection to her

arguments. Most of her arguments are also unsupported by any citations to legal

authority. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).

       Additionally, Scott does not provide clear, concise arguments for her

contentions and does not provide any specific factual assertions for most of her

arguments. See id. Instead, she makes only conclusory statements. For example, Scott

argues that she was entitled to spousal support as a matter of law, but she does not tell

us on what basis she was entitled to support or where in the record we may find

evidence showing her entitlement to the support.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g), (i).

Scott asserts that Smith violated the trial court’s order by removing property from the

house, but she does not tell us what property he removed or what part of the record

supports her assertion. She contends that the trial court “entirely disregarded evidence

pertaining to the instant matter and made its ruling erroneously thereby constituting

an abuse of discretion,” but she does not tell us what evidence the trial court

disregarded. Scott also argues that Smith submitted false information regarding his

income and finances in order to reduce child support. However, she does not tell us

       3
        Additionally, Scott acknowledges that her attorney, when she had one, never
raised the issue, and she cites no part of the record where she pled for spousal
support or raised the matter at trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; see also Tex. R. Civ. P.
301 (stating that the trial court’s judgment must conform to the pleadings).

                                           3
what evidence submitted by Smith was false or whether she raised the issue in a

pretrial motion, at trial, or in a post-trial motion.4

       Because Scott’s brief contains only conclusory allegations, unsupported by any

record references or meaningful analysis, she has waived any error. See NexPoint

Advisors, L.P. v. United Dev. Funding IV, 674 S.W.3d 437, 447 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2023, pet. filed); see also In re M.C.M., Nos. 05-21-00242-CV, 05-21-00373-CV,

2023 WL 4117080, at *3 n.8 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 22, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(stating that “a brief fails if we are required to guess about the party’s complaints,

search the record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position, or conduct

research that might support the contentions made”); Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal

Dist., No. 2-07-313-CV, 2008 WL 4053014, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29,

2008, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). We overrule her sole issue.

                                        Conclusion

       Having overruled Scott’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s final decree of

divorce.

       4
        Scott also includes in her brief an argument that Smith has not been paying his
child support since the trial. However, that complaint is not a challenge to the divorce
decree. If Scott wishes to complain about Smith’s post-decree conduct, she must first
raise the issue in the trial court, see, e.g., Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.001, and obtain a
ruling, see Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. If she refers to a failure to pay child support before
the trial court rendered judgment, she directs us to no place in the record where she
pled to recover unpaid child support or where she raised the matter at trial.

                                              4
                                /s/ Mike Wallach
                                Mike Wallach
                                Justice

Delivered: March 28, 2024

                            5