AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 3. 2013.
In The
tourt of 3 ppta(D
3iftt! Th6frtLt of (LLXLILI at Oa1ku
No, 05-12-00144-CV
JAI’WS G. JABLONSKJ, Appellant
V.
ANGELA L. ,IABLONSKI, Appellee
On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court
I)allas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF1O-12362
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Murphy. and Fillmore
Opinion by Justice Murphy
James G. Jablonski, appearing pro se, appeals from his bill of review proceeding in which
the trial court rendered a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Angela L. Jablonski, We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant, representing himself in the trial court, filed the underlying bill of review
proceeding in July 2010, alleging the final judgment entered in his divorce was the result of
fraud perpetuated by his former wife, her attorneys, and his own attorneys. Appellee filed a no-
evidence motion for summary judgment over a year after appellant filed the bill of review, in
November of 2011. As grounds, she asserted appellant had no evidence of extrinsic fraud
preventing him from presenting his case in the divorce. Appellant failed to file a response, but
filed a motion to compel discovery, which the trial court treated as a response. Attached to
appellants motion were various unverified statements and papers. an affidavit from his former
attorney describing his representation in the divorce proceedings, and an unverified letter from
an attorney staring his expert opinion he did not find evidence of extrinsic fraud that prevented
appellant 1mm presenting his case at trial on the merits. Ihe trjal court granted summary
judgment. Appellant timely filed his appeal from that judgment.
Appellant’s original appellate brief was deleient in multiple respects, and the Clerk of
this Court sent him notice of the deficiencies. We advised appellant his appeal would be
dismissed if he did not file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies. He filed a new brief,
which still contains deficiencies. In that brief, appellant complains about various aspects of his
original divorce proceeding and does not address the summary judgment from which he appeals.
Accordingly. he has not presented anything for this Court to review. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
I) IS C USSION
Appellant lists nine issues in his amended brief. None address the only appealable
matter—the trial court’s judgment on his bill of review proceeding. Those issues are listed as
follows:
Issue one, titled “Psychological EvaluationlMental Incapacity.” Appellant describes a
motion for psychological evaluation apparently filed in the underlying divorce action and
describes his participation in counseling. He ends with the statement, “However, even after
James Jablonski completed all the unnecessary treatment that his attorney told him to do, he still
never saw his children.”
Issue two, titled “Finances/Salaries.” Appellant describes his former wife’s control of the
family finances throughout the divorce and his need for financial help. He ends with the
—2—
statement, “Angela J ablonski vas the only one Vh() had acccs and contml of all the coininumty
assets.
Issue three, titled “Appellant’s Debt.” Appellant states the trial court “erred in that it
never looked at James Jahlonski’s debt that was not being taken care of by [his former wifej.”
He adds that his attorneys never requested the court to order appellee to pay his lees and
expenses and that he is still in “financial ruin.” lie ends the issue by referencing his affidavits of
indigency.
Issue four, titled “Appellee’s Relationships and Connections. In this issue, appellant
complains that his former wife had family relationships and Connections and “had available to
her every possible resource she could want or need.”
Issue five, titled “Children, Visitation and Temporary Orders.” Appellant complains in
this paragraph that he was the main caregiver of the children of the marriage and visitation rights
were not handled properly. He ends this paragraph by stating his attorneys failed to provide
affidavits or testimony from individuals on his behalf.
Issue six, titled “Protective Order.” In this paragraph, appellant complains that the trial
court erred in granting a protective order and his attorneys never appealed the decision. He adds
that his expert took a look at his case and opined that things went wrong in his divorce.
Issue seven, titled “Appellant’s Attorneys.” Appellant complains in this paragraph he
hired four attorneys in the divorce proceedings and references potential lawsuits he had against
certain of the attorneys.
Issue eight, titled “Legal Rights.” In this paragraph, appellant references his attorneys
again as not performing within the standard of care of board certified attorneys and states they
failed to make sure his former wife was accountable and truthful in the underlying divorce
proceeding.
—3--
Issue Nine, titled ‘Social llistorv.” Appellant questions why a social study was not (lone
in his divorce proceedings.
None ol these issues address the noevidence summary judgment granted by the trial
court on appellants bill of review proceeding. His complaints enumerated above relate to his
prior divorce proceedmg and his representation in those proceedings. Those issues are not
before us OH this appeal. Accordingly. appellant has presented nothing for us to review. We
affirm the trial court s judgment on the bill of review proceeding.
MARY MURPHY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tix. R. App. P. 47
120 144F.U05
Qmirt af i\ipca1
Fift1 itrirt of exa at OaI1&u
JUDGMENT
JAMES G. JABLONSKI, Appellant On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No, 05l24)0144-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-104 2362.
Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy.
ANGELA L. JABLONSKI. Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Fillmore
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee ANGELA L. JABLONSKI recover her costs of this appeal
from appellant JAMES G. JABLONSKI.
Judgment entered this 3”’ day of June, 2013.
/Mary Murphy!
MARY MURPHY
JUSTICE