Victor E. Lopez v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 10, 2014
• Docket: 04-13-00618-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Vanderbilt Mortgage and

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 10, 2014

No. 04-13-00618-CV

Victor E. LOPEZ, Appellant

v.

VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC., Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-CI-00960 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On December 27, 2013, appellant filed a one-page pro se letter that appears to be an appellate brief. Appellant’s letter/brief does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Rule 38 specifies, among other things, that appellate briefs are required to contain (1) a Table of Contents; (2) an Index of Authorities; (3) a Statement of the Case that states concisely the nature of the case, supported by record references; (4) a concise statement of the issues presented; (5) a Statement of Facts setting forth the facts pertinent to the issues presented, supported by record references; and (6) an argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (i). Substantial compliance with Rule 38 is sufficient. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. However, if Rule 38 has been flagrantly violated, this court may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If another noncomplying brief is filed, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. Id. If an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

While it is true that pro se pleadings and briefs are to be liberally construed, a pro se litigant is still required to comply with the law and rules of procedure. Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 52-53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). Because appellant’s letter/brief does not comply with Rule 38.1, we STRIKE appellant’s pro se letter/brief and ORDER appellant to file an amended brief that complies with Rule 38.1 no later than February 6, 2014. If an appellate brief that complies with Rule 38.1 is not filed by February 6, 2014, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court