Patrick D. Riecke v. Doris Riecke

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 6, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00142-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00142-CV __________________

PATRICK D. RIECKE, Appellant

V.

DORIS RIECKE, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Cause No. 39,881 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Patrick D. Riecke files this pro se appeal from a no-answer default

judgment in a divorce case. Patrick challenges the trial court’s Final Decree of

Divorce, arguing there was not an equitable and fair distribution because there is no

evidence listing the value of the parties’ community property. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

1 BACKGROUND

Appellee Doris Riecke filed an Original Petition for Divorce requesting the

trial court to divide the marital estate in a just and right manner and to award her a

disproportionate share of the estate due to fault in the breakup of the marriage. The

record shows Patrick was personally served, failed to file an answer, and failed to

appear at the final hearing. During the final hearing, Doris testified that her attorney

sent Patrick a certified letter notifying him of the hearing.

Regarding the division of property, Doris testified that she and Patrick sold

their home in Sabine County and divided the proceeds in half. Doris explained that

she bought a home in Buna (“the Buna Property”) with her part of the proceeds, and

she asked the trial court to award her the Buna Property and all the property in her

possession, including an automobile. Doris testified that Patrick used his half of the

proceeds to buy motorcycles, automobiles, and a trailer house that is located on the

Buna Property, and she requested that the trial court award Patrick those items and

all the property in his possession and order him to remove the trailer house from the

Buna Property. The trial court awarded Doris the Buna Property, all the property in

her possession, including a 2007 Chevy Malibu, and the trial court awarded Patrick

all the property in his possession, a 2003 Chevrolet truck, a 1972 Chevrolet truck, a

Dodge Dually, two motorcycles, a jet ski, and a travel trailer.

2 Patrick filed a pro se Motion for New Trial, which was overruled by operation

of law, and a pro se notice of appeal. Doris filed a Response to Patrick’s Motion for

New Trial and Appeal, claiming Patrick filed the documents to harass her, and she

attached the certified letter her attorney sent to Patrick informing him of the date and

time of the final hearing.

ANALYSIS

In his pro se brief, Patrick argues he is appealing the divorce settlement

because there was not an equitable and fair distribution of the community property

as stated in Texas law. Patrick claims there was no documentation of the value of

any community property asset held by either party and that Doris falsely represented

that he owned the travel trailer on the Buna Property.

Specifically, Patrick listed his issues as follows:

1. Failure to be present at the Divorce Settlement hearing on April 8, 2022. 2. Efforts to reach a mutually fair and equitable settlement with Doris[.] 3. Doris refused to enter into Discovery to Document all assets[.] 4. Documentation of Income During our Marriage[.] 5. Deception and Unequal Division of Revenue from the Sale of our house and land in Sabine County[.] 6. Income sources besides that from employment[.] 7. False statement made by Doris Riecke at the court hearing on April 9, 2022[.]

We construe an appellant’s pro se brief liberally. See Giddens v. Brooks, 92

S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied) (explaining pro se

3 pleadings and briefs are to be liberally construed); see also Sterner v. Marathon Oil

Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989) (stating a reviewing court construes points of

error liberally to obtain a just, fair, and equitable adjudication of the parties’ rights).

Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and

must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v.

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). Pro se parties must comply with the

rules governing error preservation and requiring adequate briefing and citations to

the record. Sneed v. Stamat, No. 09-19-00379-CV, 2021 WL 1031676, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont Mar. 18, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citations omitted). “The

appellate court has no duty to brief issues for an appellant.” In re A.E., 580 S.W.3d

211, 219 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2019, pet. denied) (citing Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d

821, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.)).

An appellate brief “‘must contain a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.’” See

Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496, 500 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Tex.

R. App. P. 38.1(i)). The failure to provide citations, argument, and analysis as to an

appellate issue may waive the issue. Id. (citing ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v.

Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex. 2010)).

In this case, Patrick’s brief listed seven issues, but his brief fails to identify

the applicable law or legal standard for each issue and then also fails to explain how

4 the trial court erred with reference to the applicable law. Patrick’s pro se brief only

included two citations to the Texas Family Code and one citation to the reporter’s

record. While Patrick complains the trial court failed to make an equitable and fair

distribution of the community property as required by Texas law, he fails to provide

legal authority and analysis applying the facts to the law. Patrick’s brief fails to

satisfy Rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Instead, his brief generally contains

bare assertions of error or allegations, and we conclude that he has presented nothing

for review on appeal and waived our review of his complaints. See Washington v.

Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (stating bare

assertations of error, without argument or authority, present nothing for review);

Sneed, 2021 WL 1031676, at *2; see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins.

Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (explaining a point may be waived due to

inadequate briefing). We overrule all of Patrick’s issues and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on March 10, 2023 Opinion Delivered April 6, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.