Date: 06-23-2017

Case Style: Michael R. Redlich v. Brenda Mize

Case Number: 05-16-00687-CV

Judge: Schenck

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District on appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Grayson County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael R. Redlich, pro se

Defendant's Attorney: Charles Sherrard

Description: Michael R. Redlich, a pro se litigant, appeals from a default judgment in favor of Brenda Mize, which awarded Mize possession of certain real property, back rent, and attorney’s fees. Redlich failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so. Thus, he waived his complaint. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTUAL &PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2016, Mize filed suit in a justice court to evict Redlich and another tenant from certain real property for failure to pay rent in January 2016 and March 2016 and failure to pay a deposit. A jury found in favor of Mize and awarded her $565 and costs of $201. Redlich
–2–
appealed the judgment of the justice court to the county court at law, which set the case for a non-jury trial on June 3, 2016.
1
On June 3, 2016, Mize and her attorney appeared, but Redlich was not present. Mize testified she and Redlich and the other tenant entered into a rental agreement on December 12, 2015, and that Redlich and the other tenant became delinquent in their rental payment the first month, January 2016. Mize gave Redlich written notices to vacate directed toward him and the other tenant before filing suit for eviction. Mize stated she was seeking the right to possession and judgment for back rent. She testified Redlich and the other tenant owed her $2,815 in unpaid rent and deposit fees, and that she had paid $700 in attorney’s fees. In addition to her testimony, Mize submitted a document she testified was an accounting of the rental collections she had made from the property at issue. At the conclusion of trial, the county court at law granted judgment in favor of Mize, awarding her $2,815 in delinquent rent and $700 in attorney’s fees, as well as any properly taxable court costs. On June 7, 2016, Redlich appealed the county court at law’s judgment.2
On August 12, 2016, Redlich filed his appellate brief. On August 17, 2016, this Court sent written notice to Redlich that his brief did not satisfy the minimum requirements of the rules of appellate procedure. The notice advised Redlich that his brief was deficient as follows:
1. The brief did not contain a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s judgment or appealable order with the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel.
2. The table of contents did not indicate the subject matter of each issue or point, or group of issues or points.
1 The other tenant did not appeal from either the justice court’s or the county court at law’s judgment.
2 We note the notice of appeal does not include all of the contents required by the rules of appellate procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d). However, it is a well-settled proposition that a court of appeals has jurisdiction over an appeal if the appellant timely files an instrument in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction, which we construe the document titled “notice of appeal” to be. See In re J.M., 396 S.W.3d 528, 531 (Tex. 2013) (reaffirming the principle that an appellate court should not dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the rules of appellate procedure would preserve the appeal).
–3–
3. The brief did not contain an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities were cited.
4. The brief did not contain a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references.
5. The brief did not concisely state all issues or points presented for review.
6. The brief did not contain a concise statement of the facts supported by record references.
7. The brief did not contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief.
8. The argument did not contain appropriate citations to authorities.
9. The argument did not contain appropriate citations to the record.
10. The brief did not contain a short conclusion that clearly stated the nature of the relief sought.
11. The brief did not contain a proper certificate of compliance.
12. The brief did not contain a proper certificate of service.
13. The following were omitted from the appendix.
a. The trial court’s judgment.
b. The jury charge and verdict, if any, or the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, if any.
c. The text of any rule, regulation, ordinance, statute, constitutional provision, or other law (excluding case law) on which the argument was based.
d. The text of any contract or other document that was central to the argument.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 38.1. Over the next two months, Redlich filed three motions requesting more time to amend his brief. We granted each of them. On October 20, 2016, Redlich filed a fourth motion for extension of time to file his brief and a request to present oral argument “just as soon as possible.” On October 24, 2016, this Court granted Redlich’s fourth request for extension of time and denied his motion for expedited placement. In that same order, we
–4–
cautioned Redlich no further extensions would be granted and that failure to file an amended brief on or before November 3, 2016, would result in the appeal being submitted with the deficient brief filed by Redlich on August 12, 2016. On November 7, 2016, Redlich submitted a document for filing, but it was not filed because it failed to comply with rule 9 of the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9(j)(1). Redlich failed to file an amended brief as ordered and the appeal was submitted on his deficient brief.
DISCUSSION
We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, 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.). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Id. at 212. The law is well established that, to present an issue to this Court, a party’s brief shall contain, among other things, a concise, non-argumentative statement of the facts of the case, 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. Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. When a party, despite notice and an opportunity to cure, fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal. See Bertaud v. Wolner Indus., No. 05-15-00620-CV, 2017 WL 1360197, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 12, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The record shows the county court at law set Redlich’s appeal from the justice court for trial de novo on June 3, 2016, but Redlich failed to appear. In his notice of appeal, Redlich states his failure to appear was a mistake, but he does not complain of any lack of service or actual knowledge of the date of the hearing or identify any reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. His brief appears to complain of errors in the justice court’s proceedings, that appellee obtained
–5–
writ of possession after Redlich filed his notice of appeal, and that he was evicted during the pendency of this appeal. Even assuming any of these issues constituted reversible error, Redlich has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that would entitle him to relief on appeal. See Bertaud, 2017 WL 1360197, at *3. Accordingly, we need not further address Redlich’s issues.

Outcome: We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: