Opinion
No. 05-09-00637-CV
Opinion Filed June 10, 2011.
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 401-52178-2008.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MYERS.
Opinion By Justice RICHTER.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from a contentious divorce. The trial court signed a final decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of Wana Kocak ("Wife") and Fatih Kocak ("Husband") on grounds of insupportability and adultery, divided the property, and awarded Wife additional sums to equalize the estate and reimburse wife for amounts Husband advanced to his girlfriend. Husband, pro se, challenges the final decree on six grounds. Concluding Husband's arguments are without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Because the law to be applied in this case is well settled, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. In his third issue, Husband asserts:
[Wife] first condoned and later connived the adultery of [Husband] in order to exploit the issue as part of her premeditated, false, and malicious contentions of fraud on the community in her petition for divorce. [Wife] blackmailed, bribed, threatened and manipulated [Husband] into remaining in a dysfunctional marriage, and defrauded him in this divorce.
In his fourth issue, Husband accuses the trial court of "a flawed contempt finding and order, cruel and unusual punishment, malicious, arbitrary and unreasonable actions and discrimination against a pro se litigant and his immigration status" and seeks to have this court sanction the trial court for alleged acts of misconduct. In his second issue, Husband asserts that Wife and her counsel withheld evidence, made fraudulent claims on the community, and suborned perjury. In his sixth issue, Husband observes that a few documents are missing from the record, but he is "willing to continue with the submission of this appeal if any of his other points are dispositive."
Recognizing this court's obligation to construe the rules of appellate procedure "reasonably yet liberally," Husband's arguments are entirely unsupported by appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. See Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Tex-Mex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997)); Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). An appellant's brief must concisely state all points or issues presented for review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. An issue presented for appellate review is sufficient if it directs the reviewing court's attention to the error about which the complaints are made. Id; see Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. Of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). We have no duty, or even right, to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine if there was error. See Valadez v. Avita, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2007, no pet.). Husband's issues fail to meet the requirements of the rules; they consist primarily of vitriolic assaults on counsel, the trial judge, and the opposing party, rely on alleged facts outside the record, are unsupported by legal authority and application of the law to the facts, and seek to have the court make determinations outside the scope of our review on issues not properly before us. We note that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with all applicable and mandatory rules of pleading and procedure. De Mino v. Sheridan, 176 S.W.3d 359, 369 n. 17 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). To apply a different set of rules to pro se litigants would be to give an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). We therefore conclude the Husband has waived these issues because they are inadequately briefed. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 (i). Issues two, three, four, and six are overruled.
Affording Husband's first and fifth issues a liberal construction, Husband appears to complain that the trial court abused its discretion in valuing and dividing the community estate. Generally, to preserve error for appellate review, a party must present a timely request, objection, or motion to the trial court stating the grounds for the ruling desired. McElwee v. McElwee, 911 S.W.2d 182, 187 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Husband raises these issues for the first time on appeal. Although Husband filed a form motion for new trial, the motion asserted only that Husband received ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was newly discovered evidence. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Husband argued only that he had discovered additional evidence. Having not complained of the errors, if any, on the record in the trial court, Husband may not complain for the first time on appeal. See Rossen v. Rossen, 792 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ).
Husband's other issues are also raised for the first time on appeal.
We note that Husband attached a seven page affidavit with twenty-three pages of electronic mail communications to his motion for new trial. At the hearing, Husband described these attachments as newly discovered evidence that his wife used his checks without his knowledge. When the trial judge inquired if Husband had anything further, Husband responded that almost eighty-five per cent of Wife's testimony was a lie, and said "some of them I cannot prove but some I can prove." Although Husband references two aspects of the court's division of property in his affidavit, we are not convinced that appellant's testimony was sufficient to apprize the trial court of the complained-of error. And even if we were to construe these references in the affidavit as sufficient notice to the trial court of the alleged error, because Husband's first and fourth issues have been inadequately briefed, nothing has been preserved for our review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Husband's first and fifth issues are overruled.
Having resolved all of Husband's issues against him, we affirm the trial court's judgment.