Opinion
05-22-01069-CV
03-18-2024
FREDERICK WINSON HALL III, Appellant v. YUEH YUE ANNA TSAI, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-04112-D
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE.
Frederick Winson Hall III, representing himself pro se, appeals the trial court's judgment awarding possession of a duplex rental unit to his landlord, Yueh Yue Anna Tsai. Hall's brief on appeal does not comply with the requirements of our appellate rules. Although Hall was notified of the deficiencies in his brief and given an opportunity to cure, he failed to do so. Accordingly, we conclude Hall has waived any error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
On April 4, 2022, Tsai notified Hall that she was not renewing his lease and he needed to vacate the property by the end of the lease term on June 30. On April 18, the Department of Code Compliance for the City of Dallas issued a Notice of Violation for the subject property stating there were items on the porch or in the yard that were not designed for outside storage. Three days later, on April 21, Tsai sent Hall a notice terminating his lease immediately based on the code violation and demanding he vacate the property within thirty days.
Tsai filed this forcible entry and detainer action in justice court on July 1. On July 13, the justice court rendered judgment for Tsai and awarded her possession of the property. On July 14, Hall sent Tsai an email stating he would leave the premises if she agreed to let him stay until the end of September. Hall said he needed extra time to pack because he was handicapped. If she did not agree, Hall stated he would "stretch this case" as long as he could. On July 20, the parties signed an agreement pursuant to which Hall promised to move out on or before September 30. He additionally agreed to pay an extra $1,000 security deposit and a $500 fee for court costs and penalties for past violations.
On August 1, Hall appealed the justice court's ruling to the county court at law. A hearing was conducted on October 6 at which both Tsai and Hall appeared pro se. Tsai testified there had been multiple code violations over the four year period Hall resided at the premises. She also stated Hall was continuing to refuse to vacate even though she had given him an additional three months to move out. Hall responded that the code violations were caused by his neighbors. He further said Tsai had refused to address issues with the rental unit such as rats and insects in the house.
After reviewing the evidence, the trial court affirmed the justice court's ruling and awarded possession of the premises to Tsai. Hall then brought this appeal.
Hall filed his appellate brief in this Court on March 13, 2023. On March 20, we notified him that his brief did not satisfy Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in over a dozen respects including (1) it did not concisely state all issues or points presented for review, (2) it did not contain a concise statement of facts supported by record references, (3) it did not contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief, (4) the argument did not contain appropriate citations to authorities, and (5) the argument did not contain appropriate citations to the record. We gave Hall ten days to file an amended brief, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the appeal was submitted on Hall's deficient brief.
Analysis
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and organization of an appellant's brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Under those rules, an appellant's brief must, among other things, concisely state all issues or points presented for review and contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f),(i). We construe briefing rules liberally and substantial compliance is generally sufficient. Tex.R.App.P. 38.9; see also Manney & Co. v. Tex. Rsrv. Life Ins. Co., 407 S.W.2d 345, 349 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1966, no writ).; Bertaud v. Wolner Indus., No. 05-15-00620-CV, 2017 WL 1360197, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 12, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.). As in trial, however, a pro se appellant must properly present his case. See Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Litigants who represent themselves are required to comply with all applicable rules and are held to the same standards as litigants represented by counsel. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211-12 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). To hold otherwise would give pro se litigants an unfair advantage over litigants with an attorney. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212.
If, after reviewing an appellant's brief, we determine the appellant has flagrantly failed to acquaint the Court with the issues in the case and present argument that will enable us to render a decision, we may require the brief to be amended. Tex.R.App.P. 38.9(a). When a party, despite notice and an opportunity to cure, fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have no duty or right to perform an independent review of the record and the applicable law to determine if the trial court erred. Bertaud, 2017 WL 1360197, at *3.
Hall's brief of appeal does not contain a statement of relevant facts or any citations to the record or legal authority. It also does not provide any argument or analysis explaining how he believes the trial court erred. Reading Hall's brief liberally, we conclude the only discernable legal issue presented is a contention that Tsai's suit for eviction was filed prematurely based on the dates of the notices to vacate he received. In the interests of justice we will address this contention.
Under section 24.005 of the Texas Property Code, a landlord must give a tenant who defaults or holds over beyond the end of the lease term at least three days' written notice to vacate the premises before filing a forcible detainer suit unless the parties have contracted for a shorter or longer notice period. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.005(a). The record in this case shows Tsai brought this eviction case based on a code compliance violation, which was an event of default under the lease. Tsai notified Hall on April 21, 2022, that she was terminating the lease based on the code violation and that he was required to vacate the premises within thirty days. She did not file this suit for eviction until July 1. Accordingly, Tsai's suit was timely under section 24.005. Id.
To the extent Hall intended to raise other issues on appeal, we conclude they have been waived. We cannot speculate as to the substance of the issues Hall may have wanted to assert, and we may not make his arguments for him. See Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678. While we are reluctant to render a decision on the basis of briefing waiver, where the appellant, after being given an opportunity to cure, fails to submit a brief that provides a satisfactory submission of his complaints, "we are presented with only the presumption of correctness of the underlying judgment." Albrecht v. Bank of New York Mellon for CWAB, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-17, No. 05-17-00272-CV, 2018 WL 992023, at *6 (Tex. App.-Dallas Feb. 21, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.