Daisia Perry v. Emerald Oaks ( 2021 )

Opinion issued June 15, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00704-CV
———————————
DAISIA PERRY, Appellant
V.
THE LIFE AT EMERALD OAKS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. CV-0087224
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Daisia Perry appeals a judgment of eviction that awarded her landlord
possession of an apartment, back rent, and attorney’s fees.
Perry was pro se in the trial court. Through her trial testimony, she admitted
that she owed rent and utilities for the months of April, May, June, July, August, and
September 2020. Trial testimony established that these expenses totaled $5,105.01.
During the pendency of the suit, Perry paid $1,643 into the Registry of the
Court. On the day of trial, she testified she was prepared to pay another $820.
According to trial testimony, this left $1,472.92 in unpaid rent and $349.09 in unpaid
utilities.
At the trial court’s suggestion, the parties attempted to establish a payment
plan to bring Perry current on her rent and utilities. The parties announced in open
court that a resolution could not be reached.
After receiving documentary evidence and testimony, the trial court entered a
judgment of eviction and awarded the landlord past rent and attorney’s fees. Perry
appealed.
Perry did not file an appellate brief by the briefing deadline. After the deadline
passed, Perry filed a motion for a 30-day extension to file her brief. Perry did not
file her brief within that 30-day period. Later, Perry filed a one-page letter brief that
failed to include any citations to legal authority or the appellate record.
An appellate brief “must 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(i). Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as those represented
2
by counsel. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).
Perry has waived her appellate issues challenging the judgment.
Conclusion
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Sarah Beth Landau
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss.
3