Sharon R. Craver v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB Not Individually, but Solely as Trustee for Nationstar HECM Acquisition Trust 2020-1

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 12, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-01037-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 12, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01037-CV

SHARON CRAVER, Appellant

V.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT INDIVIDUALLY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR NATIONSTAR HECM ACQUISITION TRUST 2020-1, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22C-123

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Smith In this forcible detainer action, the county court at law determined that

appellee Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not Individually, But Solely as

Trustee for Nationstar HECM Acquisition Trust 2020-1, had a superior right to

possess the property at issue. Appellant Sharon Craver, acting pro se, appeals the

trial court’s judgment. Because she failed to provide the Court with a brief that

complies with the rules of appellate procedure, we dismiss her appeal. We liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, but we hold pro se litigants

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

applicable laws and rules of procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181,

184–85 (Tex. 1978)). Otherwise, pro se litigants would have an unfair advantage

over litigants represented by counsel. Id. at 212.

We do not adhere to rigid rules about the form of briefing, but we do examine

whether an appellant’s brief is deficient. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch.

Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). The requirements

for an appellant’s brief are set out in Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 38.1. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. “Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we

discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes

of the appeal one way or the other.” Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Crenshaw v.

Hous. Auth. of City of Dallas, Texas-Cliff Manor, No. 05-18-00143-CV, 2019 WL

1486890, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 4, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). We are not

responsible for identifying trial court error, searching the record for facts that might

be favorable to a party’s position, or legal research that might support a party’s

contention. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3dd at 895. “Were we to do so, even for a pro se

litigant untrained in law, we would be abandoning our role as judges and become an

advocate for that party.” Id.

–2– Craver filed a brief on January 9, 2023. On January 13, the Court informed

her that the brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and was

deficient in the following respects:

(1) it did not contain a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s judgment or appealable order with the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel;

(2) the table of contents did not indicate the subject matter of each issue or point, or group of issues or points;

(3) it did not contain an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities were cited;

(4) it did not contain a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references;

(5) it did not concisely state all issues or points presented for review;

(6) it did not contain a concise statement of the facts supported by record references; and

(7) the argument did not contain appropriate citations to authorities or to the record.

See TEX. R. APP. 38.1. The notice also informed Carver that the trial court’s

judgment, the jury charge and verdict, if any, and the trial court’s findings of fact

and conclusion of law, if any, were missing from the appendix to her brief. The

notice concluding by stating: “Failure to file an amended brief that complies with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within 10 days of the date of this letter may

result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice from the Court.”

–3– By order dated January 25, we extended the time for Craver to file her

amended brief until February 8. And, on February 9, we notified Craver that

although she submitted a motion for filing, it was not filed because “it was submitted

as an attachment to a brief cover page.” We directed appellant to file a corrected

motion within three days. Craver declined to do so and did not file an amended

brief.

Because Carver failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our

appellate rules after being given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss the appeal.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE

221037F.P05

–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

SHARON R. CRAVER, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court, Kaufman County, Texas No. 05-22-01037-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 22C-123. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND Justices Carlyle and Kennedy SOCIETY, FSB, NOT participating. INDIVIDUALLY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR NATIONSTAR HECM ACQUISITION TRUST 2020-1, Appellee

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 12th day of September 2023.

–5–