From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Gibson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Jan 25, 2024
No. 02-23-00243-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2024)

Opinion

02-23-00243-CV

01-25-2024

Estate of Kevin Michael Gibson, Deceased


On Appeal from Probate Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-PR00912-1.

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Per Curiam

Appellant Stephanie Hernandez claims to be the wife of the decedent in this probate proceeding. After she filed her appellant's brief on October 11, 2023, this court notified her that the brief failed to conform to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it did not contain a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case with record references, a statement regarding oral argument, the issues presented, a statement of facts with record references, a summary of the argument, a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to legal authorities and to the record, an appendix, or a certificate of compliance. See Tex.R.App.P. 9.4, 38.1. We warned Appellant that if she did not file a corrected brief that complied with Rule 38.1, we could strike her brief and dismiss the appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.

The decedent left a will that did not mention Appellant and stated that the decedent was unmarried.

Appellant filed a corrected brief, but it does not comply with Rule 38.1. Among other defects, it still does not contain any record references. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(i). Further, the brief contains only two citations to authority, and neither has any apparent relevance to Appellant's complaint on appeal.

She states, "Motion in court probate from counteract on hearing that was not given rule 306a." We assume "rule 306a" is a reference to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a, but the rule has no apparent relevance to any statements in her brief. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 306a. She also includes the statement, "Notice on court hearing and had an injunction request chapter 65," which we assume is a reference to Chapter 65 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 65.001-.045. However, the only reference to an injunction request in the clerk's record is in a document that Appellant filed after the trial court had rendered a final judgment in which she asked the trial court to enjoin the sale of a house. It is not apparent to this court how Chapter 65 has any relation to any complaint that Appellant makes on appeal.

Appellant's corrected brief is so inadequate that, in order to proceed with it, we would have to make her legal arguments for her and conduct the legal research to find authority to support those arguments. This we cannot do. See King v. Travis Cnty., No. 03-05-00851-CV, 2007 WL 1647817, at *3 (Tex. App.-Austin June 6, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Further, we would have to look through the appellate record for her to determine if the record supports those arguments. Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Allen Rae Inv., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 459, 489-90 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (noting that appellate courts are not required to search the record without guidance from the briefing party).

A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney, and thus Appellant has the obligation to follow the applicable rules of procedure, including the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Smith v. Nat'l Protective Servs., No. 02-21-00442-CV, 2023 WL 308171, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Jan. 19, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 2-07-313-CV, 2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Appellant was required to file a brief that complied with the mandatory appellate briefing rules. See Porter v. Kennard Law PC, No. 01-22-00153-CV, 2022 WL 11413164, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 20, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.), cert. denied, No. 23-231, 2023 WL 7475193 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2023).

We strike Appellant's corrected brief because of her noncompliance with the briefing rules, and we dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c); Smith, 2023 WL 308171, at *2.


Summaries of

In re Gibson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Jan 25, 2024
No. 02-23-00243-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2024)
Case details for

In re Gibson

Case Details

Full title:Estate of Kevin Michael Gibson, Deceased

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

Date published: Jan 25, 2024

Citations

No. 02-23-00243-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2024)