Trenise Price v. Lenneth Gardner Sr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00193-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00193-CV __________________

TRENISE PRICE, Appellant

V.

LENNETH GARDNER SR., Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24CCCV0159 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Appellant Trenise Price (“Appellant,” “Trenise,” or “Price”) appeals

from a judgment rendered in favor of Appellee Lenneth Gardner Sr. (“Appellee” or

“Gardner”) that awarded Gardner $9,683 plus post-judgment interest against Price.

We affirm.

1 Background

The underlying lawsuit began on October 19, 2023, when Gardner filed his

petition against Trenise Price in the Justice Court for Precinct 2 in Jefferson County,

Texas. Therein, Gardner stated he was seeking damages of $8,500 for “auto,

medical[,] and lost wages” due to an accident Price allegedly caused. Price filed a

document with the Justice Court that stated that Trenise Price was not the sole owner

of the vehicle involved in the accident, that Trenise had sold the vehicle to Kourtlan,

but Kourtlan had not been able to put the vehicle in her name. After a bench trial on

January 16, 2024, in which both the plaintiff and defendant appeared, the Justice

Court rendered a judgment for Gardner, finding that Gardner had proved the

allegations in his petition and ordering that Gardner recover from Price $8,171.64

with interest plus court costs. Thereafter, Price appealed the Justice Court judgment

to the County Court at Law.

The County Court at Law No. 1 then held a bench trial on May 16, 2024.

Gardner appeared personally and acted pro se, but Price did not appear. The trial

court found that proper notice was given. Gardner explained to the trial court that

the accident occurred because Price failed to yield, Gardner collided with Price, and

Price received a ticket because Price did not have insurance. According to Gardner,

he was seeking damages of $9,683 for the cost to repair his vehicle and for hospital

bills. After hearing evidence, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of Gardner

2 and awarded damages of $9,683 against Price plus post-judgment interest. Price then

filed a notice of appeal.

Analysis

Price’s brief on appeal appears to be from Kourtlan Price—Trenise Price’s

daughter—and therein she argues, “[i]n my mother’s defense, she wants to prove

that the vehicle is no longer hers and I Kourtlan Price purchased the vehicle March

30th 2022.” The brief also argues that Gardner caused the collision by his failure to

yield.

Appellant was pro se in the trial court, and she is pro se on appeal. Generally,

we construe an appellant’s pro se brief liberally. Sullivan v. Lemonade Ins. Co., No.

09-24-00211-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 6990, at *8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept.

26, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Giddens v. Brooks, 92 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied) (“pro se pleadings and briefs are to be liberally

construed[]”). That said, a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed

attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Id. (citing

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978)). The brief must

articulate the issues we are to decide, and a brief fails to comply with the rules if we

must speculate or guess about the appellant’s issues. Id. (citing Golden v. Milstead

Towing & Storage, Nos. 09-21-00043-CV, 09-21-00044-CV, & 09-21-00045-CV,

2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 5, 2022, no pet.)

3 (mem. op.)). We are not an advocate for any of the parties, we do not search the

record to identify possible or unassigned trial court error, and we do not search for

facts or legal authorities that may support a party’s position. Id. at **8-9; see also

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

(explaining that, in a civil matter, an appellate court has no duty nor right to perform

an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine if there was

error).

The brief filed on appeal is signed by Trenise Price, however, it appears to

have been written by Kourtlan Price. Kourtlan Price, as a non-attorney, may not

represent another party in litigation or on appeal because it constitutes the

unauthorized practice of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 7; Swain v. Dobbs, 692 S.W.3d

720, 731-32 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2023, no pet.).

That said, an appellate brief must include a concise statement of the issues and

a “succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments” supported by citations

to the record and to appropriate authority. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i). To

comply with Rule 38.1, an appellant must cite existing and relevant legal authority

and apply the facts to the cited law to show how the trial court committed error. See

id.; Golden, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at *9 (citing Barham v. Turner Constr.

Co. of Tex., 803 S.W.2d 731, 740 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied) (explaining

that the appellant bears the burden of discussing his assertions of error)). An

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

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

may be waived by inadequate briefing[]”). In addition, the appellate record does not

reflect that Appellant made her complaints or objections in the trial court. See Tex.

R. App. P. 33.1 (to preserve error for appeal, a party must make a timely and specific

objection and obtain a ruling thereon).

Due to the inadequacy of her brief, and her failure to make any of her appellate

complaints known to the trial court, Appellant has waived her complaints on appeal.

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Golden, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at **9-10; see

also Fredonia State Bank, 881 S.W.2d at 284-85; McKellar v. Cervantes, 367

S.W.3d 478, 484 n.5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (“Bare assertions of

error, without argument or authority, waive error.”); Serrano v. Union Planters

Bank, N.A., 162 S.W.3d 576, 580 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, pet. denied); Massey

v. Royall, No. 14-02-01260-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 719, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that pro se

appellant’s incomprehensible issue could not be addressed). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment. See Atkins-January v. State Off. of Risk Mgmt., No. 09-16-00439-

CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7330, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 3, 2017, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Martinez v. El Paso Cnty., 218 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex.

App.—El Paso 2007, pet. struck)).

5 AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on December 30, 2024 Opinion Delivered January 16, 2025

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.