Rejeania Marie Williams v. Everett Keith Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00005-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00005-CV ________________

REJEANIA MARIE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

EVERETT KEITH WILLIAMS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C-240,262 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this pro se appeal from a Final Decree of Divorce, Rejeania Marie

Williams (“Rejeania”) complains about the trial court’s division of property and

failure to require Everett Keith Williams (“Everett”) to pay spousal support.

Rejeania also complains about Everett’s failure to timely make payments as ordered

in the Final Decree. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND

In October 2021, Everett filed a pro se Original Petition for Divorce and an

Affidavit of Indigency. Rejeania filed a pro se answer, stating she needed to find

legal assistance because Everett was not going to be fair regarding his settlement

from a car wreck that occurred during the marriage. In May 2022, the trial court

entered an Order Ruling Costs, finding Everett was a pauper and unable to pay costs

incurred in the case.

In December 2023, the trial court conducted a final hearing, during which

Everett testified that he and Rejeania were married in November 2017 and separated

around July 2020. The trial court heard testimony that the parties had no children

during the marriage and had not bought any real estate. Everett explained that he

was living in a home that he and his brother inherited from his mother. Everett

testified that he purchased a 2000 Dodge truck in 2023, and he contributed $1,500

towards the purchase of a BMW that was not in his name. Everett also testified that

he was in a partnership and had contributed $5,000 toward the purchase of a dump

truck.

Rejeania testified that during the marriage, Everett sold some kind of property

for $11,000, and after they separated, he kept $6,000 of their money in a bank

account. Everett denied having $6,000, and Rejeania “[s]omewhat[]” agreed that the

$11,000 from three and a half years ago had probably been spent. Rejeania explained

2 that they also owed $700 on a bank account, and she owed $2,000 on her AT&T bill

because Everett and his daughter did not turn in their phones.

Rejeania testified she did not own a vehicle, which Everett refuted, and she

requested a reasonable amount of spousal support because Everett bit her wrist and

caused her to have multiple surgeries and to be unable to work. Everett claimed he

was defending himself when Rejeania came to his house during the night and tased

and pepper sprayed him. Rejeania explained they had words earlier that day when

she found out he was sleeping with her friend, and she went to his house to get her

vacuum and to ask him about her friend, but he did not want to talk. Rejeania testified

that after Everett bit her, she tased and pepper sprayed him, and she did not pursue

the charges she filed against him.

Concerning Rejeania’s request for spousal support, the trial court explained

that she did not file a counterpetition seeking spousal support and even if she had,

she did not meet the legal requirements of being married ten years. The trial court

also explained that since Everett admitted paying money towards the dump truck

and another vehicle, which were community property, it rendered a judgment for

$2,500 to Rejeania to equalize the division of property and ordered Everett to pay

$500 for the next five months. Everett agreed to the payments. The trial court also

ordered the parties to each pay half of the AT&T bill. The trial court found the

$2,500 judgment equalized the division of property, which was just and right.

3 ANALYSIS Rejeania appeared pro se in the trial court and on appeal. We liberally construe

a pro se appellant’s brief. See Delgado v. Lopez, No. 09-21-00019-CV, 2022 WL

5237397, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 6, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Giddens

v. Brooks, 92 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied). That said,

pro se litigants must comply with the briefing rules and the rules of evidence and

procedure, and we do not afford them special treatment because they are acting pro

se. See Washington v. Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012,

no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978)).

An appellate brief must state all issues presented for review clearly and concisely

and include appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. See Tex. R. App.

P. 38.1(f), (i). “When the appellate issue is unsupported by argument or lacks citation

to the record or legal authority, nothing is presented for review.” Delgado, 2022 WL

5237397, at *1 (citing Atkins-January v. State Off. of Risk Mgmt., No. 09–16–

00439–CV, 2017 WL 3297977, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 3, 2017, no pet.)

(mem. op.)); Nguyen v. Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th

Dist.] 2002, no pet.). We have no duty or right to independently review the record

and applicable law to determine whether there was error; if we did, we would no

longer be neutral adjudicators but become an advocate for that party. See Valadez v.

Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). Therefore, an

4 appellant may forfeit error through her failure to adequately brief. Fredonia State

Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284–85 (Tex. 1994) (stating error

may be waived by inadequate briefing); McKellar v. Cervantes, 367 S.W.3d 478,

484 n.5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (noting “[b]are assertions of error,

without argument or authority, waive error[]”); In re Lester, 254 S.W.3d 663, 668

n.3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, orig. proceeding).

Rejeania’s brief consists of eight pages in which she complains about the trial

court’s division of property and failure to award her spousal support. 1 Rejeania also

complains about Everett’s failure to make timely payments toward the $2,500

judgment awarded to her in the Final Decree. Rejeania’s complaints are not

supported by “clear and concise” argument, and she did not include appropriate

citations to relevant legal authority and to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f),

(i). We conclude that, based on the inadequacy of her brief, Rejeania has waived her

complaints on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Fredonia State Bank, 881 S.W.2d

at 284. Finding that nothing has been preserved for our review, we affirm the trial

1 We note that Rejeania attached numerous exhibits to her brief, which were not included in the appellate record. A reviewing court may not consider evidence that was not before the trial court at the time it made its decision. See Univ. of Tex. v. Morris, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (Tex. 1961). With limited exceptions not relevant to this appeal, an appellate court may not consider materials outside the appellate record. See In re K.M., 401 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.).

5 court’s judgment. See Martinez v. El Paso Cnty., 218 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. App.—

El Paso, 2007, pet. struck); see also Washington, 362 S.W.3d at 854–55.

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on August 20, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 29, 2024

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