Louis Fris v. Yolanda Rios

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00676-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 5, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00676-CV ——————————— LOUIS FRIAS, Appellant V. YOLANDA RIOS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-71724

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Yolanda Rios sued Appellant Louis Frias to quiet title to real

property over which she and Frias assert ownership rights. Following a bench trial,

the court entered a final judgment in favor of Rios finding that Rios is the sole owner of the property and holding that any claim by Frias to the property is invalid. Frias,

pro se, appeals from the trial court’s final judgment.

We affirm.

Issues on Appeal

Appellant argues that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed

because the judgment was issued in error. In five issues, he argues the trial court

erred in concluding Appellee was the rightful owner of the property because (1) there

was “evidence indicating [Appellee] has never paid for any associated costs,

including property taxes or funeral expenses,” (2) Appellee “presented no receipts

or proof to substantiate her allegations of ownership or financial contributions,”

(3) one of the witnesses who testified at trial offered “false” testimony and thus the

“witness’s credibility should be re-evaluated,” (4) Appellant’s criminal background

“was brought up during the civil case, which was entirely irrelevant to the ownership

dispute and may have prejudiced the outcome,” and (5) Appellee “arrived late for

court” and the case should have been “dismissed on these grounds.”

Briefing Waiver

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

same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable

laws and rules of procedure. McCann v. Bluewater Investments Inc., No. 01-19-

00375-CV, 2020 WL 4589747, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug 11, 2020,

2 no pet). Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing, requiring

“appellants to state concisely their complaints, to provide succinct, clear, and

accurate arguments for why their complaints have merit in law and fact, to cite legal

authority that is applicable to their complaints, and to cite appropriate references in

the record.” Richardson v. Marsack, No. 05-18-00087-CV, 2018 WL 4474762, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 19, 2018, no pet.). “‘This is not done by merely uttering

brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.’” McCann, 2020 WL

4589747, at *3 (quoting Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106

S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, pet. denied).

In listing and briefing his issues on appeal, Appellant does not provide this

Court with appropriate argument, analysis, explanation, or support for his issues. He

merely lists his issues without any citation to authorities or meaningful discussion.

Failure to cite applicable authority or provide substantive analysis waives an issue

on appeal. Hopes-Fontenot v. Farmers New Worls Life Ins. Co., No. 01-12-00286-

CV, 2013 WL 4399218, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 15, 2013, no

pet). We thus hold that Appellant waived his issues on appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(i); McCann, 2020 WL 4589747, at *4 (holding pro se appellant waived his

issues for failure to provide appropriate argument, analysis, explanation, or support

for his issues); Hopes-Fontenot, 2013 WL 4399218, at *1 (holding pro se litigant

3 must properly present his case on appeal and that courts may not make allowances

or apply different standards for litigants appearing without counsel).

Even if Appellant had not waived his issues on appeal, Appellant would not

prevail.

Failure to Request a Reporter’s Record

The official court reporter notified this Court that Appellant Louis Frias had

not requested or made arrangement to pay for the reporter’s record. We notified

Appellant that the reporter’s record was past due and that his appeal could be decided

on the clerk’s record if he did not request a reporter’s record and make arrangement

for payment of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). In response, Appellant filed

a letter indicating he wanted “to move forward without the reporter[’]s record[ ]

[c]ontinuing only on clerk[’]s record.”

Discussion

Without a reporter’s record, we are limited to considering only those issues

on appeal that do not require a reporter’s record for decision. Id. Appellant’s first

three issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Evaluation of the sufficiency

of the evidence supporting the trial court’s judgment requires that we review the

evidence submitted during trial. See, e.g., City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802,

810–11, 822 (Tex. 2005) (setting out standards of review); see also Van Ness v.

Hobbs, No. 01-22-00631-CV, 2023 WL 3311124, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

4 Dist.] May 9, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op) (same). In the absence of a reporter’s record,

the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive and we presume sufficient evidence

supported any additional necessary findings. Bryant v. United Shortline Inc.

Assurance Servs., N.A., 972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998) (“We indulge every

presumption in favor of the trial court’s findings in the absence of a [reporter’s

record].”); Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (holding that in

absence of reporter’s record, “it is presumed that the omitted evidence supports the

trial court’s judgment”). We thus presume the trial court heard sufficient evidence

to support its judgment in favor of Appellee.

To the extent Appellant also argues, as part of this third issue, that one of the

witnesses was not credible because he gave false testimony, the trial court, as the

finder of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to give

their testimony. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819. The trial court may choose

to believe one witness and to disbelieve another, and we may not impose our own

opinion to the contrary. Id. We thus overrule Appellant’s first three issues.

In his fourth issue, Appellant argues the trial court committed error by

admitting testimony about his criminal background. He argues the evidence was not

relevant and may have prejudiced the outcome. A reporter’s record is required “to

preserve evidentiary complaints for appellate review when evidence is introduced in

open court.” Vernco Constr., Inc. v. Nelson, 460 S.W.3d 145, 150 (Tex. 2015) (per

5 curiam). Because there is no written objection to the challenged evidence in the

clerk’s record, without the reporter’s record, we cannot conclude that this issue was

preserved. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (setting forth preservation requirements for

appellate review); see also Van Ness, 2023 WL 3311124, at *1 (overruling

evidentiary issue on appeal because no reporter’s record was filed). We overrule

Appellant’s fourth issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Veronica Rivas-Molloy Justice

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.