Mobile Mechanic v. Sonia Torres ( 2003 )

In The

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00436-CV

____________

LARRY MILLER, D/B/A MOBILE MECHANIC, Appellant

V.

SONIA TORRES, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 762975

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          This is an appeal from a no-answer default judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee, Sonia Torres. The trial court ordered that defendant/appellant, Larry Miller, d/b/a Mobile Mechanic, return plaintiff’s vehicle and pay $1,000 in damages. We affirm.

          The right to a new trial after a no-answer default judgment is governed by the three-part test set out in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939). To be entitled to a new trial under Craddock, the movant must show that:

(1) his failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference on his part, but was due to accident or mistake;

(2) the motion for new trial alleges a meritorious defense; and

(3) the motion is filed at a time when the granting of a new trial will not occasion delay or work other injury to the plaintiff.

Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81, 82-83 (Tex. 1992); Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126.

          In its one-page, pro se appellate brief, Mobile Mechanic contends that there was a “paper work mixup, or loss of a single page of paper from the court file. . . Torres has some thing [sic] to do with the disappearance of that sheet of paper from the file, Torres is working in the legal filed field, [sic] this is one of the oldest trick on the book [sic].”

          This allegation does not satisfy the Craddock test. Mobile Mechanic did not allege improper service of process under Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S. Ct. 896, 899 (1988). Mobile Mechanic did not file an affidavit, and its appellate brief contains neither legal authority nor references to the record. A point of error not supported by authority is waived. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Holt v. F.F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied).

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.  

                                                                                  Adele Hedges

                                                                                  Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Jennings, and Alcala.