AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 21, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00016-CV
NANCY RANGEL AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants
V.
MCMACKIN BEAM REVOCABLE TRUST, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05738-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Evans
Opinion by Justice Evans
Appellant Nancy Rangel and all other occupants appeal from the trial court’s final
judgment which held that appellee McMackin Beam Revocable Trust (“Trust”) was entitled to
possession of the real property at issue in addition to back rent and attorneys’ fees. Appellant
asserts the following arguments: (1) whether the trial court correctly concluded that it had
jurisdiction to hear case; (2) if the landlord’s representative had legal authority to act for a
California trust; (3) whether any fiduciary violations occurred from lack of proper accounting;
(4) whether a clerical error occurred in reporting tenant debt; (5) this case is a re-litigation of
same facts and issues; (6) whether a violation of appellant’s seventh amendment right occurred;
and (7) whether the forcible entry and detainer was legally sufficient to execute. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Charles Blaylock Realtors (“Realtors”) is the property manager for the real property
located at 2808 San Marcus Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75228 (the “property”). The owner of the
property is the Trust and Leslie Beam is the trustee (“Trustee”).
On September 8, 2008, the Realtors executed a residential lease with appellant and
Danny Baird for lease of the Property. Appellant and Baird agreed to pay rent in the amount of
$950.00 per month for a lease commencing on September 9, 2008, and expiring on August 1,
2009. The lease contained the following paragraph:
This lease automatically renews on a month-to-month basis unless Landlord or
Tenant provide the party written notice of termination not less than: (1) 30 days
before the Expiration Date.
On May 31, 2013, the Realtors provided Rangel with a notice of landlord’s intent not to
renew. On July 25, 2013, the Trustee provided Rangel with written notice to vacate the property
due to her refusal to pay the contracted rent. The Trustee demanded that Rangel vacate the
premises by midnight on September 9, 2013. Rangel failed to surrender the property.
On September 10, 2013, the Trust filed a petition for forcible detainer in a Dallas County
justice of the peace court. On September 30, 2013, the court entered judgment in favor of the
Trust and granting it back rent and attorneys’ fees. Appellants appealed this judgment to the
County Court of Law No. 2 and a bench trial was held on December 5, 2013. The county court
ruled in favor of the Trust and granted it possession of the property, back rent, and attorneys’
fees. Appellant then filed this appeal.
ANALYSIS
We start with the admonition that an appellant’s brief must contain a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made and citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P.
–2–
38.1(i). Rule 38 requires a party to provide us with such discussion of the facts and authorities
relied upon as may be necessary to present the issue. Gonzalez v. VATR Const. LLC, No. 05-12-
00277-CV, 2013 WL 6504813, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 12, 2013, no pet.). Inadequate
briefing results in waiver of the complaint. Dunmore v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 400 S.W.3d 635,
644 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.).
On August 12, 2014, appellant filed her appellate brief which lacked a clear and concise
argument as well as appropriate citations to authorities and the record. This Court, by letter
dated August 25, 2014, notified appellant that her pro se brief did not comply with the rules of
appellate procedure and advised her that failure to file an amended brief that complied with rule
38.1 could result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant was instructed to file an amended brief by
September 4, 2014. On September 4, 2014, rather than filing an amended brief, appellant filed a
motion for extension of time to file petition for review. In our order dated September 18, 2014,
we requested that appellant file an amended brief correcting the noted deficiencies and treated
appellant’s motion as a motion for an extension of time to file an amended brief. We granted the
motion and gave appellant until September 30, 2014, to file an amended brief. The order stated
“We caution appellant that if she fails to file an amended brief on or before SEPTEMBER 30,
2014, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution without further notice. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 42.3(b) & (c).”
On September 22, 2014, appellant filed a document titled petition for review and request
of a motion for relief from judgment which similarly failed to comply with the rules of appellate
procedure. On December 8, 2014, appellant filed a request for an extension of time to file a
reply brief. On December 31, 2014, appellant filed a document titled amended appellant reply
brief and request of a motion for relief from trial court rulings. Appellant also filed additional
–3–
briefing on January 5, 2015, April 1, 2015, and April 10, 2015, and none of these briefs complied
with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
Although we construe pro se pleadings and briefs liberally, we hold pro se litigants to the
same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with the applicable laws and
rules of procedure. In re N.E.B, 251 S.W.3d 211, 212 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); see
also Gonzalez, 2013 WL 6504813 at *4 (“Appellate courts must construe briefing requirements
reasonably and liberally, but a party asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific
argument and analysis showing that the record and the law support his contention.”). To do
otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by
counsel. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. Accordingly, for all the reasons described above,
appellant has waived her issues on appeal. Id. (“When a party fails to adequately brief a
complaint, he waives the issue on appeal.”); Gonzalez, 2013 WL 6504813 at *3 (“The failure to
provide appropriate record citations or a substantive analysis waives an appellate issue.”).
CONCLUSION
We resolve appellant’s issues against her and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/ David Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
140016F.P05
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
NANCY RANGEL AND ALL OTHER On Appeal from the County Court at Law
OCCUPANTS, Appellants No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05738-B.
No. 05-14-00016-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans.
Chief Justice Wright and Justice Myers
MCMACKIN-BEAM REVOCABLE participating.
TRUST, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee MCMACKIN-BEAM REVOCABLE TRUST recover its
costs of this appeal from appellants NANCY RANGEL and all other occupants.
Judgment entered this 21st day of July, 2015.
–5–