Opinion
No. 05-05-01135-CV
Delivered: March 28, 2007.
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1-03-498.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and RICHTER.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Stephen A. Warren (Husband) appeals the judgment entered by the district court in Rockwall County in a divorce case between himself and Leslie D. Warren (Wife). The Court previously determined Husband's brief was defective and ordered him to file an amended brief to correct the deficiencies. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. Thereafter Husband filed a set of documents entitled "Brief"; however, it contains many of the same defects as the original brief. Therefore, we will proceed with the briefs filed.
The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well-known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Further, as mentioned below, we have no Reporter's Record. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
An appellant's brief "must state concisely all issues or points presented for review." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e). As a general rule, we are bound to consider a point on appeal, even though technically not properly briefed, if our attention is directed to a specific error of the trial court. See Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Dayton, 958 S.W.2d 452, 455 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied). However, a point that is merely an abstract proposition of law or a general complaint about the trial court's actions is too general and indefinite to merit our review. Id.; see also Thomann v. Lakes Reg'l MHMR Center, 162 S.W.3d 788, 794 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (general directive in brief to review summary judgment affidavits for hearsay and improper conclusions is insufficient to direct appellate court's attention to error complained of).
We have read Husband's brief. It consists of pages or groups of pages labeled to correspond to the requirements for an appellant's brief set forth in Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. However, the content of these pages does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. For example: (1) the "Index of Authorities" merely refers to the trial court and its "officers, agents or assigns"; (2) the "Statement of the Case" consists of a chronology of the marriage and the divorce proceedings below; (3) the "Issues Presented" appears to reference various subjects, but does not indicate how any of the items referenced constitute legal issues or arguments for this Court to consider; (4) the "Statement of Facts" (or at least portions thereof) appears to be a more expansive description of the matters stated in the "Issues Presented," but again we are unable to discern any specific complaint regarding any action, inaction, or ruling of the trial court; (5) the "Statement of Facts" contains no references to the record; and (6) the "Argument" contains neither citations to authorities or to the record.
Husband's brief describes the "Issues Presented" as follows:
Mistrial has taken place based on the facts of the case.
Family Violence has occurred on ex-wife but was never presented to the Jury.
Lawyers Recorded documents into the Court on November 24, 2003 State Stephen Warren had committed Family Violence.
Court Appointed Psychologist (Barry Coakly) His Evaluation Testimony
Divorce Settlement fees
The Medical Care for Emma Rose Warren.
Thousands of Dollars spent For Nanny's
Interspersed among the pages described above are various documents apparently copied from the Clerk's Record, the clerk's file below, or from the clerk's file in other cases-both civil and criminal-in Rockwall and other counties, including (but not limited to): filings apparently made in Dallas County Court at Law No. 2; an affidavit wherein Husband declares that certain events took place-both in and outside the courtroom-in connection with the divorce proceedings, and in which Husband refers the Court to "the eternal and unchanging principals [sic] of the laws of Commerce . . ."; a motion to dismiss a criminal proceeding in Rockwall County; a lengthy letter from a psychologist to the visiting judge in the case below containing a final report as well as a summary of testimony of Husband and Wife; an arrest report; and bills from Wife's attorneys.
Having reviewed Husband's brief, we can ascertain that he believes he is entitled to a new trial-apparently in another venue. He complains that: evidence his Wife committed family violence was never presented to the trial court; the trial court wrongfully concluded that he committed family violence; he cannot "get a fair shake" before the trial court; he should not have to pay Wife's attorney's fees; and he spent all his money attempted to obtain medical care for his youngest daughter, who ultimately died of Tay-Sachs disease. However, he does not identify or draw our attention to any specific error of the trial court. Rather, he complains generally that the divorce decree was improper and that he was treated unfairly.
Further, the appellant's brief must "contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Appellant's amended brief contains no such argument as to any purported error committed by the trial court.
In summary, we are unable to discern any specific complaint regarding any action, inaction, or ruling of the trial court. We also note that Husband has not obtained a reporter's record of the proceedings below. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). Absent a reporter's record, we cannot know what evidence was presented to the trial court, what objections or arguments were made to the trial court, and the trial court's rulings on evidentiary issues or disputes. Thus, even if we could ascertain Husband's complaints, most-if not all-of them cannot be supported by the record.
Husband filed an affidavit of indigency seeking a reporter's record. That affidavit was contested, and the trial court sustained the contest of Husband's indigency.
We conclude Husband's brief presents nothing for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e); Dayton, 958 S.W.2d at 455. We affirm the trial court's judgment.