Brittany Morris v. Creekside Villas Apartments ( 2024 )

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 30, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01203-CV
BRITTANY MORRIS, Appellant
V.
CREEKSIDE VILLAS APARTMENTS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-03684-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Smith
Opinion by Justice Smith
Pro se appellant Brittany Morris appeals the trial court’s default judgment
granting appellee Creekside Villas Apartments possession of the apartment in which
she had become a holdover tenant and awarding appellee attorney’s fees and costs.
Because appellant has failed to present a brief that complies with the rules of
appellate procedure, we dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Appellant’s brief consists of the following summary of the argument:
On June 22, 2022 Creekside Villas Apartments filed for an eviction due
to a holdover for reasons stated in the lease agreement. In which I
strongly disagree and do[] not feel the reason or reasons are yet to be
proven or provided. I feel I was not given the opportunity to express or
mediate the reasons for the holdover before the eviction on June 22,
2022 and yet till this day. I have remained in my home at [apartment
address] and had no incidents.
We liberally construe pro se briefs, but we hold pro se litigants to the same
standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and
rules of procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008,
no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978)).
Otherwise, pro se litigants would have an unfair advantage over litigants represented
by counsel. Id. at 212.
We do not adhere to rigid rules about the form of briefing, but we do examine
whether an appellant’s brief is deficient. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch.
Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). The requirements
for an appellant’s brief are set out in Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. “Only when we are provided with proper
briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a
decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the other.” Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at
895. We are not responsible for identifying possible trial court error, searching the
record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position, or doing legal research
that might support a party’s contention. Id. If we were to do so, “we would be
abandoning our role as judges and become an advocate for that party.” Id.
Appellant first submitted a brief on June 12, 2023. On June 14, 2023, this
Court notified her by written order that her brief did not satisfy the requirements of
–2–
rule 38. Specifically, we notified appellant that a brief must contain: (1) a complete
list of all parties; (2) a table of contents; (3) an index of authorities; (4) a concise
statement of the case, the court proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the
case supported by record references; (5) a concise statement of all issues for review;
(6) a concise statement of facts supported by record references; (7) a succinct, clear,
and accurate statement of the argument made in the body of the brief; (8) argument
with appropriate citations to authorities and the record; (9) a short conclusion that
clearly states the nature of the relief sought; (10) an appendix that includes the
documents listed in the rule; (11) a certificate of compliance; and (12) a certificate
of service. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(e), 38.1(a)–(d), (f)–(k). We noted that
appellant’s brief contained only a summary of the argument section, see id. 38.1(h),
and ordered her to file an amended brief that complied with the rules no later than
June 26, 2023. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply may result in dismissal
of the appeal without further notice. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
Appellant submitted an amended brief on July 6, 2023, which this Court
accepted and filed, along with an extension motion, on July 7, 2023. Although
appellant added some party information, a statement of the case, a certificate of
service, and a certificate of compliance, she did not correct the remaining
deficiencies. Thus, as to her argument and issues presented, she provided only the
summary of the argument as quoted above, which does not include a legal argument,
analysis, or any citations to the record or legal authority. “Without adequate
–3–
briefing, [her] claim is nothing more than a personal opinion.” Bolling, 315 S.W.3d
at 897. “As such, it is not entitled to judicial review.” Id.
Because appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of the
rules of appellate procedure after having been given the opportunity to do so, we
dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–97.
221203f.p05 /Craig Smith//
CRAIG SMITH
JUSTICE
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BRITTANY MORRIS, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at
Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01203-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-03684-
B.
CREEKSIDE VILLAS Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
APARTMENTS, Appellee Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee CREEKSIDE VILLAS APARTMENTS
recover its costs of this appeal from appellant BRITTANY MORRIS.
Judgment entered this 30th day of April 2024.
–5–