Court Opinion

ID: 9398382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 06:10:00.649584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.219471
License: Public Domain

Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 26, 2023

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00598-CV

                   BARBARA CARRAWAY, Appellant
                                 V.
                    ALBERT BLACK AS RECEIVER
                FOR 3304 JUDGE DUPREE DRIVE, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02040-E

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Smith, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Breedlove
      This is an appeal from a forcible entry and detainer suit tried de novo in county

court. Appellant Barbara Carraway, proceeding pro se, appeals the county court’s

judgment awarding the property to Albert Black as Receiver for 3304 Judge Dupree

Drive (Black). For the reasons we discuss below, we dismiss the appeal.

      Black filed a forcible entry and detainer suit in justice court against Barbara

Carraway, Pamela Carraway, and all occupants of a home at 3304 Judge Dupree

Drive in Dallas. Black was awarded possession of the premises on April 4, 2022.
Carraway appealed to county court. That court awarded possession of the premises

to Black by judgment dated June 16, 2022.

      Carraway filed her notice of appeal in this Court and proffered a pro se brief

on September 26, 2022, asserting two issues: (1) “As an owner of the property, does

defendant[ ] have a right to request additional time to move from the property?” and

(2) Can the property be sold or can the sale of the property take place prior to the

defendants moving from the property?” Carraway also filed a motion requesting an

extension of time to stay at the property. We denied the motion by order of October

11, 2022, because Carraway did not file a supersedeas bond within ten days of the

judgment. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (county court’s judgment “may not

under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal” without filing of appeal bond

within ten days of judgment).

      In our order, we also advised Carraway that her brief did not comply with rule

of appellate procedure 38.1 because it did not contain: (1) a list of all parties; (2) a

table of contents that indicated the subject matter of each issue; (3) an index of

authorities; (4) a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the

trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references; (5) a concise

statement of the facts supported by record references; (6) a succinct, clear, and

accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief; (7) appropriate

citations to authorities; and (8) appropriate citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(a)–(d), (g)–(i). We ordered Carraway to file an amended brief correcting

                                          –2–
these deficiencies and cautioned her that failure to comply may result in dismissal

of her appeal without further notice.

      Pursuant to our order, Carraway filed an amended brief on October 20, 2022.

Although Carraway complied in part with this Court’s order to correct the above-

noted deficiencies, she did not provide any legal argument or citation to authority to

support her contentions that she had “a right to request additional time to move” and

that the property could not be sold before she moved. Instead, she again requested

to remain in the home for an indefinite period, citing matters outside the appellate

record.

      Black has filed a response arguing that Carraway has not made any legal

argument or cited to any precedent that would allow her to retain possession of the

property. We agree.

      Parties to civil litigation in Texas may represent themselves at trial or on

appeal. TEX. R. CIV. P. 7; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d

893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). The right of self-representation carries

with it the responsibility to comply with our rules of appellate procedure. Bolling,

315 S.W.3d at 895 (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85

(Tex. 1978)). Courts regularly caution pro se litigants that courts will not treat them

differently from a party who is represented by a licensed attorney. See Mansfield

State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 184–85; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

                                         –3–
      Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. TEX. R. APP. P.

38. These rules require appellants to state concisely their complaints, to provide

succinct, clear, and accurate arguments for why their complaints have merit in law

and fact, to cite legal authority that is applicable to their complaints, and to cite

appropriate references in the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i). To comply with

rule 38.1(f), an appellant must articulate the issues we will be asked to decide.

Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (“[W]e must be able to discern what question of law we

will be answering.”) The brief fails if we must speculate or guess about the

appellant’s contentions. Id.

      Although we do not adhere to rigid rules about the form of briefing when

deciding whether an appellant’s brief is deficient, we do examine briefs for

compliance with the briefing rules. Id. at 895. After close examination, if we can

conclude a brief complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we submit

the appeal for review and decision on the merits. See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d

585, 587 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (appellate court should reach the merits of an

appeal whenever reasonably possible). If we cannot, we may dismiss the appeal as

we are authorized to do by our appellate rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315

S.W.3d at 895–96.

      Although Carraway timely filed a corrected brief, she cites no legal authority

to support her contentions that she has a right to request additional time to move

from the property and that the property cannot be sold before she moves. Her

                                         –4–
argument contains no citations to the record and she does not explain how the trial

court erred in its ruling. Because Carraway failed to comply with the briefing

requirements of the rules of appellate procedure after having been given the

opportunity to do so, we dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling,

315 S.W.3d at 895–97.

                                          /Maricela Breedlove//
220598f.p05                               MARICELA BREEDLOVE
                                          JUSTICE

                                       –5–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

BARBARA CARRAWAY,                           On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant                                   Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02040-
No. 05-22-00598-CV         V.               E.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice
ALBERT BLACK AS RECEIVER                    Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness
FOR 3304 JUDGE DUPREE                       and Smith participating.
DRIVE, Appellee

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 26th day of May, 2023.

                                      –6–