IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00226-CV
Nancy Braus,
Appellant
v.
Ray M. Bowen, J. Malon Southerland,
William L. Kibler, Russell W. Thompson,
John J. Koldus, III, Major General M.T.
Hopgood, Jr., Donald J. Johnson, Zack
Coapland, Kevin Jackson, James R.
Reynolds, Robert Harry Stiteler, Jr.,
and Michael David Krenz,
Appellees
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 03-001246-CVA-361
MEMORANDUM Opinion
This is an appeal by Nancy Braus, the mother of Dominic Braus, an adult who was injured in the collapse of the bonfire being built on the Texas A&M campus in 1999. As a result of that catastrophic event, many lawsuits were filed. One of those suits is now the subject of this appeal. While the suit was pending, the Texas Supreme Court decided Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2003). In Roberts, the Texas Supreme Court held that a parent does not have a claim which can be asserted against those alleged responsible for the injuries to an adult child. As a result of that holding, the trial court, either by summary judgment motion or by motion to dismiss, has disposed of Nancy Braus’s claims for the injuries to her adult son as a result of the collapse.
Though initially represented by counsel, counsel withdrew from the representation and Nancy Braus proceeded to pursue her claims acting as her own attorney. First the trial court and parties, and now this Court, have struggled to allow Ms. Braus to have a meaningful opportunity to assert her legal claims and positions at hearings and on appeal. This Court has spent an inordinate amount of time to try to keep the various appeals in which Nancy Braus is involved properly separated because the orders disposing of her claims as to the various defendants were not all rendered and severed from the primary suit, which was designated “In re Bonfire” at the trial court level, at the same time thus generating multiple appeals as to the various parties. Notwithstanding the efforts of the trial court and this Court, confusion has been the norm and precision and compliance with the rules has been in short supply.
In this proceeding, while designating herself as appellee, Nancy Braus has filed a voluminous document, well in excess of the 50 page limit, which she contends is her brief in this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.4. We strike this brief and dismiss Nancy Braus’s claims because we have previously warned her not to file another non-compliant brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). That is the procedure that the appellees, defendants in the trial court, are entitled to.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Alternatively, we apply Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to expedite the disposition of this appeal. We will not require the Appellees to file a brief in response to the brief filed by Nancy Braus, nor will we require the case to be “submitted.” From the brief filed on September 18, 2007, we are able to discern that Nancy Braus’s complaint on appeal is that the Roberts v. Williamson case is unconstitutional. As an intermediate court, however, we are bound to apply the clear precedent of this State’s highest court. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the trial court’s judgment determining that Nancy Braus does not have a cause of action for the injuries sustained by her adult son is correct and should be affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal dismissed or alternatively affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 10, 2007
[CV06]