Opinion
No. 05-07-00186-CV
Opinion Filed July 1, 2008.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Kaufman County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 70196CC.
Before Justices MOSELEY, FRANCIS, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se appellant David Thomas appeals from a summary judgment in a suit on a sworn account. In three issues, Thomas asserts the trial court should not have: (1) granted summary judgment when he was not properly served with the summary judgment motion and did not receive notice of the summary judgment hearing, (2) "issued a default judgment without a record being made of the proceedings and with witnesses who lack personal knowledge," and (3) "rendered a default judgment using hearsay." Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellee Harvest Credit Management, Inc. ("Harvest") filed a suit on a sworn account against Thomas. Thomas filed an answer denying the allegations in the petition. Harvest filed a motion for summary judgment on December 11, 2006. Harvest's attorney signed certificates of service stating both the motion for summary judgment and notice of the hearing set for January 25, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. were sent to Thomas. On January 2, 2007, Thomas filed a "Special Exception to Plaintiff Harvest Credit Management LLC, Motion for Summary Judgment." Thomas did not appear at the summary judgment hearing. The trial court signed a judgment in favor of Harvest on January 25, 2007. Thomas did not file a motion for new trial. This appeal followed.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. Applicable Law
A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. That person must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied).
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require an 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(h). The failure to adequately brief an issue waives that issue on appeal. See Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) ("Failure to cite applicable authority or provide substantive analysis waives issue on appeal."); see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284-85 (Tex. 1994).
To preserve error on appeal, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, motion, or objection, state the specific grounds therefor, and obtain a ruling that appears in the record. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie, 997 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex. 1999). The request, motion, or objection must state the grounds for the ruling sought by appellant with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). To bring to the trial court's attention that failure to respond or appear at a summary judgment hearing was due to a lack of notice, the party must file a motion for new trial. Smith v. Mike Carlson Motor Co., 918 S.W.2d 669, 672 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ). While a motion for new trial is not required to preserve a complaint on the substantive grounds for which a summary judgment has been granted, a motion for new trial is required to preserve for appellate review a complaint regarding lack of notice of the summary judgment motion and hearing. Id.; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 324; Tex. R. App. P. 52(a).
B. Application of Law to Facts
In his first issue, Thomas asserts he was not served with the summary judgment motion and did not receive notice of the summary judgment hearing. However, Thomas did not present this argument to the trial court, by motion, objection, or otherwise. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 997 S.W.2d at 280. Therefore, we conclude Thomas has failed to preserve error on this issue. See Smith, 918 S.W.2d at 672. We decide against Thomas on his first issue.
With regard to Thomas's second and third issues, Thomas provides no briefing to support his argument on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). We conclude Thomas has failed to adequately brief these issues and, therefore, has waived his complaints that the trial court erred in granting a "default judgment" with no record being made of the proceedings, with witnesses who lack personal knowledge, and using hearsay. See Huey, 200 S.W.3d at 854; Fredonia State Bank, 881 S.W.2d at 284-85. Accordingly, we decide against Thomas on his second and third issues.
III. CONCLUSION
Thomas failed to preserve error on his complaint regarding notice of the summary judgment motion and hearing. Further, Thomas waived his second and third issues by failing to adequately brief these issues on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.