Court Opinion

ID: 9376913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 11:06:48.291005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:10.221002
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-22-00024-CV
     ___________________________

        PAUL BAILEY, Appellant

                     V.

 DANA CHERISSE MICHAELIS, Appellee

 On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
           Denton County, Texas
    Trial Court No. CV-2021-04381-JP

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

      Paul Bailey, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s judgment

awarding possession of 129 Schooling Road in Roanoke, Texas (the Property) to

Appellee Dana Cherisse Michaelis. Because Bailey failed to adequately brief his

challenges to the judgment, we will affirm.

                                    I. Background

      According to Michaelis, she leased the Property to Bailey in October 2019

under an oral lease agreement. On October 26, 2021, Michaelis sent Bailey a notice to

vacate the Property by certified mail; she also delivered a copy of the notice to Bailey

by posting it on the Property’s front door. The notice gave Bailey until November 5,

2021, to vacate the Property. Bailey refused to leave.

      On November 15, 2021, Michaelis sued in justice court to evict Bailey from the

Property, claiming that he had failed to pay rent, that he had breached the lease

agreement’s terms by “lack of maintenance & agreement,” and that he was unlawfully

holding over. After a bench trial at which both Michaelis and Bailey appeared, the

justice court awarded possession of the Property to Michaelis, along with court costs.

Bailey timely appealed to county court at law for a trial de novo. See Tex. R. Civ. P.

510.9, 510.10.

      At the trial de novo, Michaelis testified that the lease agreement with Bailey was

an oral, temporary agreement. She stated that she had first informed Bailey in spring

2021 that he would need to find another place to live because the larger parcel that

                                              2
included the Property had been replatted. 1 Michaelis further testified that on October

26, 2021, she sent Bailey a notice to vacate by certified mail and posted the notice to

the Property’s front door. After Michaelis sent the notice to vacate, Bailey started

making death threats toward Michaelis. Michaelis then sued to evict Bailey for several

reasons: unpaid rent, “lack of maintenance,” not “abiding by the agreement,” and

holding over.

       Bailey testified that he believed that Michaelis had decided to evict him in

retaliation for his complaining about the Property’s condition—a water leak, resulting

mold, a broken refrigerator, and issues with the hot water. See generally Tex. Prop.

Code Ann. §§ 92.331–.335. He further stated that by the time Michaelis had sued to

evict him, he had already filed a repair-and-remedy suit in justice court complaining

about the water leak and the mold. See generally id. §§ 92.051–.062. He also complained

that the justice court had erroneously consolidated his repair-and-remedy suit with

Michaelis’s eviction suit. 2

       At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court awarded possession of the Property to

Michaelis, and the trial court later signed a possession judgment in her favor. Bailey

has appealed.

       1
        According to Michaelis’s trial attorney, the parcel was going to be developed
starting in September 2021.

       It does not appear from our record that the justice court did, in fact,
       2

consolidate Bailey’s repair-and-remedy suit with Michaelis’s eviction suit.

                                           3
                                       II. Analysis

       A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney and must

comply with applicable laws and procedural rules. E.g., In re T.H., No. 02-19-00300-

CV, 2020 WL 5833624, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 1, 2020, no pet.) (per

curiam) (mem. op.); Flores v. Off. Depot, Inc., No. 02-10-00311-CV, 2011 WL 2611140,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 30, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). “On appeal, as at

trial, the pro se appellant must properly present his case.” Flores, 2011 WL 2611140, at

*2. To properly present a case on appeal, an appellant’s brief must, among other

requirements, “state concisely all issues or points presented for review” and “contain a

clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to

authorities and to the record.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (i).

       We construe briefs liberally. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. Bailey generally

complains that the trial court erred by awarding possession of the Property to

Michaelis. But, even construing Bailey’s brief liberally, we are unable to determine

what issues he is presenting for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f). We are

likewise unable to discern his argument, and he has made no citations to the record.

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Regarding citations to legal authority, Bailey quotes the

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution; quotes Article I, Section 30 of

the Texas Constitution (“Rights of Crime Victims”); and quotes part of Property

Code Section 92.331 (“Retaliation by Landlord”). See U.S. Const. amend. VII; Tex.

Const. art. I, § 30; Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 92.331. He also cites United States Code

                                             4
Title 42, Section 1983; Property Code Section 92.056 (“Landlord Liability and Tenant

Remedies; Notice and Time for Repair”); and four cases. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; Tex.

Prop. Code Ann. § 92.056. But Bailey does not explain these legal authorities’

applicability, and we are unable to determine how these legal authorities support

Bailey’s argument because we are unable to understand what his argument is.

      While “[w]e are mindful of the difficulties that pro se litigants face,” we cannot

make Bailey’s arguments for him. Thiessen v. Fid. Bank, No. 02-17-00321-CV, 2018 WL

5993316, at * 3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see

Baish v. Allen, No. 02-17-00146-CV, 2019 WL 1284900, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Mar. 21, 2019 no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Identifying and determining the number of issues

[appellant] is presenting puts us in the precarious position of possibly over-advocating

or under-advocating on his behalf when, as a neutral adjudicator, we should not be

advocating for any party at all.”); Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 2-07-313-

CV, 2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied)

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (noting that the appellant’s brief was “so inadequate that we

would have to make her legal arguments for her” and that pro se litigants are held to

the same standards as licensed attorneys). “We do not have a duty to conduct an

independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether the error

complained of occurred.” Flores, 2011 WL 2611140, at *2. Because Bailey’s brief does

not concisely—or clearly—state the issues presented for review and does not contain

a clear argument for his contentions with appropriate citations to legal authorities and

                                            5
to the record, we hold that Bailey has waived any potential appellate issues. See Tex. R.

App. P. 38.1(f), (i); Ex parte D.K., No. 02-22-00020-CV, 2022 WL 15075939, at *2

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 27, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We thus overrule

Bailey’s challenges to the trial court’s judgment.

                                    III. Conclusion

       Having overruled Bailey’s appellate challenges, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

                                                      /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                      Elizabeth Kerr
                                                      Justice

Delivered: March 2, 2023

                                            6