Opinion
No. 05-04-00838-CV
Opinion Filed September 13, 2005.
On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 01-14575-V.
Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, MOSELEY, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Teh Fu Wang (Husband) appeals from a final decree of divorce terminating his marriage with Jeng K. Wang (Wife). Although the Court notified Husband that his pro se brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure, Husband declined to file an amended brief. Therefore, on January 5, 2005, the Clerk notified Husband that it was filing his brief, tendered on November 10, 2004, and proceeding on the basis of that brief. At that time, the Clerk informed Husband that the "Court makes no determination as to the adequacy of the brief or record on file." 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. 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. We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, a pro se litigant is required to comply with applicable rules. We hold pro se litigants the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Clemens v. Allen, 47 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).
Although Husband's notice of appeal seems to indicate he is complaining about the trial court's entry of a post-judgment order appointing a receiver to sell the couple's house, it also states he is appealing a final judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed Husband's brief and find it nearly unintelligible. However, it appears to complain about the trial court's division of the couple's property, its appointment of Wife as the managing conservator for the couple's child, and its denial of Husband's $50,000 counterclaim for therapy expenses related to depression and suffering brought about by Wife. Therefore, we construe Husband's appeal as complaining of the final judgment entered by the trial court.
However, Husband's brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i). Moreover, it does not point out any error or purported error of the trial court. We conclude Husband's inadequate briefing presents this court with nothing for review. See Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. Midgard Energy Co., 113 S.W.3d 400, 416 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. denied).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.