Jessica L. Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA ( 2021 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 8, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01289-CV
JESSICA L. JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03662
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, and Goldstein
Opinion by Justice Goldstein
Wells Fargo obtained a summary judgment against Johnson for the unpaid
balance of her Wells Fargo credit card. Johnson, who is pro se, appeals the
judgment, raising five issues. Johnson’s brief lacks any citations to the record and
does not include any authority in support of her complaints,1 nor does her argument
explain, even summarily, why the issues she raises constitute errors by the trial court
which could have resulted in an erroneous judgment against her.
1
Johnson cites two cases filed against Wells Fargo in unrelated matters, but those cases are not authorities
that support her arguments or relate to the judgment rendered against her.
Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, we hold pro se litigants to the
same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with our rules of
procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no
pet.). Excusing pro se litigants from complying with rules would provide them with
an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Id.Briefs filed in this Court must contain, among other items, a non-
argumentative statement of the facts, supported by record references, and a clear and
concise argument for the contention made with appropriate citations to authorities
and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593 S.W.3d 398, 401
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. denied). Short conclusory statements, unsupported
by legal citations do not suffice. Amrhein, 593 S.W.3d at 401. Nor will we search
the record for facts or conduct legal research where the party asserting error has
failed to do so. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Undertaking these tasks would position us as
advocates rather than judges. Amrehein, 593 S.W.3d at 401; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at
895.
Despite our request for an amended brief in which we identified Johnson’s
failure to comply with Rule 38.1, she did not file an amended, compliant brief. Each
issue she raised as error is accordingly subject to waiver on that basis. Unifund CCR
Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 797 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (“We will not
consider factual assertions that appear solely in briefs and are not supported by the
–2–
appellate record.”); In re J.A.M.R., 303 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010,
no pet.) (“The law is well-settled that to present an issue to this Court, a party’s brief
shall contain, among other things, a clear and concise argument for the contentions
made with appropriate citations to authority and the record.”); TEX. R. APP. P.
38.1(i). We conclude Johnson waived any error below by failing to comply with
Rule 38.1. We AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
JUSTICE
191289F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JESSICA L. JOHNSON, Appellant On Appeal from the 101st Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-19-01289-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03662.
Opinion delivered by Justice
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness
Appellee and Pedersen participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, NA recover its
costs of this appeal from appellant JESSICA L. JOHNSON.
Judgment entered January 8, 2021
–4–