eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2014-04

Marjorie Putnam v. Major Edward Barbee ( 2014 )


Menu:
 
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00487-CV
MARJORIE PUTNAM                                                     APPELLANT
V.
MAJOR EDWARD BARBEE                                                  APPELLEE
----------
FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Marjorie Putnam sued Appellee Major Edward Barbee to recover
$6,000 in earnest money that Putnam allegedly paid to Barbee as part of a real
estate transaction that ultimately never happened.      Barbee generally denied
Putnam’s allegations, and after a final trial at which each side appeared pro se,
the trial court ordered that Putnam take nothing on her claim.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Putnam argues in her first issue that the trial court denied her equal
protection of the law because it “discriminated against her because of her gender
and unrepresented status.” Equal protection is violated when a statute makes
invidious or unreasonable classifications. Lucas v. United States,
    757 S.W.2d 687
    , 702 (Tex. 1988) (Phillips, C.J., dissenting).       The trial court admonished
Putnam about the dangers of self-representation before affording both her and
Barbee an opportunity to present evidence, conduct cross-examination, and
make argument. Putnam’s first issue challenges no statute and contains nothing
more than unsupported allegations levied at the trial court. We overrule her first
issue.
In her second issue, Putnam argues that the trial court denied her due
process by assessing costs against her that were “not awarded at Trial.” “The
successful party to a suit shall recover of his adversary all costs incurred therein,
except where otherwise provided.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 131. The allocation of costs is
a matter for the trial court’s discretion.      Rogers v. Walmart Stores, Inc.,
    686 S.W.2d 599
    , 601 (Tex. 1985).          Here, the trial court taxed costs against the
unsuccessful party, and Putnam directs us to no authority requiring the trial court
to simultaneously assess costs when it orally renders judgment. We overrule
Putnam’s second issue.
Putnam argues in her third issue that the trial court abused its discretion by
“believing everything [Barbee] said and nothing [Putnam] said.             The Judge
ignored everything in and attached to [Putnam’s] Complaint . . . .” Documents
2
attached to pleadings are not evidence unless they are introduced at trial, and
Putnam never sought to introduce any of the documents that she attached to her
petition. See Am. Fire & Indem. Co. v. Jones,
    828 S.W.2d 767
    , 769 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 1992, writ denied). Further, as the factfinder, the trial court could
have believed Barbee’s testimony and disbelieved Putnam’s testimony, what little
there was. See Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
    143 S.W.3d 118
    , 122 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.). We overrule Putnam’s third issue and affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: April 30, 2014
3