Court Opinion

ID: 9963787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 08:14:23.780527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:59.684240
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                             __________________

                             NO. 09-23-00376-CV
                             __________________

                       BRANDON CEASER, Appellant

                                        V.

                HEATHERBROOK APARTMENTS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                        Jefferson County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 23CCCV0661
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this appeal of an eviction proceeding, pro se Appellant Brandon Ceaser

(“Appellant” or “Ceaser”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee

Heatherbrook Apartments (“Appellee” or “Heatherbrook Apartments”) for past due

rent and late fees of $5,472 and reasonable and necessary attorney fees of $2,000.

As explained below, we affirm.

                                        1
                              Background and Pleadings

      Heatherbrook Apartments, Ceaser’s landlord, filed an eviction proceeding in

Justice of the Peace Court Precinct Two in Jefferson County, Texas, to recover

possession of the premises and past due rent and court costs. The Justice of the Peace

entered a default judgment in favor of Heatherbrook Apartments, and Ceaser

appealed the default judgment to the County Court at Law No. 1. After a bench trial,

the trial court signed a judgment, providing in relevant part as follows:

             . . . . The Court considered the evidence and finds that [Ceaser]
      vacated and surrendered the premises on November 14, 2023, was in
      default under the lease, that [Ceaser] had failed to comply with Texas
      Property Code Sections 24.0053 and 24.0054 by failing to pay rent
      during the appeal, and that Heatherbrook Apartments is entitled to
      recover $5,472.00 as past due rent and late fees, $2,000 as reasonable
      and necessary attorney fees, and immediate possession of the property
      from [Ceaser].
             It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that
      Plaintiff, Heatherbrook Apartments, have and recover from the
      Defendant, Brandon Ceaser the amount of $5,472.00 as past due rent
      and late fees, $2,000 as reasonable and necessary attorney fees, and
      possession of the premises . . . from Defendant, Brandon Ceaser, for
      which let a writ of possession issue.

Ceaser timely appealed the trial court’s judgment to this Court.

                                        Analysis

      On appeal, Ceaser filed a pro se brief, and in it he argues that the trial court

erred in granting the judgment in favor of Appellee because Ceaser had an “inability

to pay.” In his brief he fails to clearly identify how the trial court erred, and he fails

                                            2
to support his arguments with citations to the record and to appropriate legal

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

      Appellant was pro se in the lower court proceedings, and he is pro se on

appeal. Generally, we construe an appellant’s pro se brief liberally. See Giddens v.

Brooks, 92 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied) (“pro se

pleadings and briefs are to be liberally construed[]”). That said, a pro se litigant is

held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable

laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-

85 (Tex. 1978). The brief must articulate the issues we are to decide, and a brief fails

to comply with the rules if we must speculate or guess about the appellant’s issues.

Golden v. Milstead Towing & Storage, Nos. 09-21-00043-CV, 09-21-00044-CV, &

09-21-00045-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May

5, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 Tex.

App. LEXIS 3601, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)). We

are not an advocate for any of the parties, we do not search the record to identify

possible or unassigned trial court error, and we do not search for facts or legal

authorities that may support a party’s position. Id.; see also Valadez v. Avitia, 238

S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (explaining that in a civil matter

an appellate court has no duty nor right to perform an independent review of the

record and applicable law to determine if there was error).

                                           3
      To comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant must cite

existing and relevant legal authority and apply the facts to the cited law to show how

the trial court committed error. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Broussard v. Vicknair,

No. 09-21-00391-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 9371, at *43 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

Dec. 14, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); Golden, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at *9. Due

to the inadequacy of his brief, and his failure to identify applicable law and apply

the law to the facts of this case, we conclude that Appellant has waived his

complaints on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am.

Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284-85 (Tex. 1994) (“error may be waived by

inadequate briefing[]”); Golden, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at *9 (citing

McKellar v. Cervantes, 367 S.W.3d 478, 484 n.5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no

pet.) (“Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error.”));

Atkins-January v. State Off. of Risk Mgmt., No. 09-16-00439-CV, 2017 Tex. App.

LEXIS 7330, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 3, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issues, and we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                          LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                               Justice
Submitted on April 10, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 25, 2024

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.
                                          4