Beth Ann Ruohonen F/K/A Beth Ann Kahkonen v. LRCA Investment LLC D/B/A Northside RV Resort and Northside RV Resort

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 6, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00213-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00213-CV

Beth Ann Ruohonen f/k/a Beth Ann Kahkonen, Appellant

v.

LRCA Investment LLC d/b/a Northside RV Resort and Northside RV Resort, Appellee

On appeal from the 40th District Court of Ellis County, Texas Judge Bob Carroll, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 111141

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 20, 2024, we struck the brief of pro se appellant Beth Ann

Ruohonen f/k/a Beth Ann Kahkonen for failure to comply with several of the

Rules of Appellate Procedure and ordered her to file a corrected brief

conforming with the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), (k), 9.5(d),

38.1(a)-(d), (f)-(i), (k). By letter dated January 30, 2025, we warned Appellant that her appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution because she had not

filed her corrected brief. See id. at R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.

On February 25, 2025, Appellant filed a document that we construe as

her attempt to file a brief. Like Appellant’s original brief, this brief is also

noncompliant. Appellant lists several facts without record references, lacks

argument with citation to legal authorities, and does not satisfy many of Rule

38.1’s other formal requirements. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (c)-(d), (f)-(i), (k).

Furthermore, Appellant’s brief does not include proof of service as required by

Rule 9.5 and does not contain a certificate of compliance regarding the number

of words in her brief. See id. at R. 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(d).

Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, we hold pro se litigants to

the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with all

applicable rules of procedure to ensure fairness in our treatment of all

litigants. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex.

1978). When a party files a noncompliant brief, and after being afforded the

opportunity to file a corrected brief, files another brief that does not comply

with the appellate rules, “the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from

filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.” TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9(a). When a party fails to file a brief, we may dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution. Id. at 38.8(a)(1).

Beth Ann Ruohonen f/k/a Beth Ann Kahkonen v. LRCA Investment LLC d/b/a Northside RV Resort and Northside RV Resort Page 2 Accordingly, because Appellant has failed to file a rule-compliant brief

even after we afforded her the opportunity to do so, we strike Appellant’s

noncompliant brief and dismiss the appeal. See id. at R. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a),

42.3 (b)-(c), 43.2(f).

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: March 6, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Dismissed [CV06]

Beth Ann Ruohonen f/k/a Beth Ann Kahkonen v. LRCA Investment LLC d/b/a Northside RV Resort and Northside RV Resort Page 3