Opinion
No. 05-08-01044-CV
Opinion Filed March 2, 2010.
On Appeal from the County Court of Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-08-06337-E.
Before Justices BRIDGES, LANG, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from a complaint for forcible detainer filed by The Bank of New York Trust Company ("Appellee") against Joseph and Laura Cornelius ("Appellants"). Judgment was granted in favor of Appellee by the Justice of the Peace. Appellants appealed to the County Court of Law No. 5 of Dallas County, where judgment was again rendered in favor of Appellee. In a single issue on appeal, Appellants, appearing pro se at the trial court and before this court, contend they received insufficient notice in the complaint for forcible detainer. We conclude Appellants failed to preserve error. Because all dispositive issues are well settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 5, 2008, Appellee purchased a property sold at foreclosure, 116 Hickman Dr., Cedar Hill, Dallas County, Texas. Appellee began eviction proceedings on June 17, 2008 by sending Appellants a demand letter telling them to vacate the property within three days. Because Appellants did not vacate, on June 25, 2008, Appellee brought a forcible entry and detainer action in Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 4-1 in Dallas County. Judgment was granted in favor of Appellee. Appellants appealed the justice court decision to the county court, and the case was tried on July 31, 2008. The trial court's judgment awarded possession of the property to Appellee. Appellants timely filed notice of appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). On appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly present its case. Id. at 678; Plummer v. Reeves, 93 S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. denied).
Appellants contend in their brief that Appellee "did not give [Appellants] accurate written notice" pursuant to section 24 of the property code "by stating precise accounting of unpaid indebtedness in contents of notice." The record reflects that when the trial court asked if Appellants had a "legal defense to the lawsuit," Appellants responded that they had none. Further, the record does not include any written pleading, motion, or objection filed by Appellants raising this point. Pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure, in order for a party to present a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). If a party fails to do so, the issue is not preserved and may not be made on appeal. Id. Appellants' issue was not preserved and may not be considered on appeal. We decide this issue against Appellants.
In the Summary of the Argument section of their brief, Appellants raise another argument that the Appellee's complaint filed in the trial court was improper pursuant to rule 741 of the rules of civil procedure. No specific issue or point on appeal is designated for this argument as required by Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f). Further, Appellants provide us with no discussion on this argument, did not cite any legal authorities, and, according to the record, did not raise the argument at the trial court. The rules of appellate procedure require appellant's brief 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(i). An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to any legal authority presents nothing for the court to review. Birnbaum v. Law Offices of G. David Westfall, 120 S.W.3d 470, 477 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. filed); Plummer, 93 S.W.3d at 931. Similarly, we cannot speculate as to the substance of issues. See Plummer, 93 S.W.3d at 931. Even had the issue been properly briefed, we observe that the record contains no objection in the trial court raising this proposition. Nothing is preserved for our review on this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).
The Summary of the Argument section of Appellant's brief read in full: "The court erred by granting possession to the Plaintiff because the contents of notice is insufficient due to inaccurate notice. Appellants assert the complaint failed to complete requisite of complaint in accordance with Rule 741 of The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of service."
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.