Matthew M. Villa v. Marta I. Villa--Appeal from 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00758-CV

Matthew M. VILLA,

Appellant

v.

Marta I. VILLA,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CI-05957

Honorable Michael P. Peden , Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone , Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez , Chief Justice

Catherine Stone , Justice

Sarah B. Duncan , Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 6, 2006

AFFIRMED

Matthew Villa appeals the trial court's judgment granting a divorce and dividing the community estate. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 for the following reasons:

1. Matthew's first complaint alleges the trial court abused its discretion by rendering its decision without hearing all of the pertinent facts of the case. Matthew claims that had the trial court considered all of the relevant facts, the court "would have protected his rights." Matthew neither identifies the additional facts he would have submitted to the trier of fact nor explains how such facts would have altered the rights of the parties. Consequently, we hold Matthew's first complaint is inadequately briefed and decline to consider this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Favaloro v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 13 S.W.3d 831, 839 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2000, no pet.) ("[Appellant] does not explain or support his contention that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to the Commission's counsel, and he does not set forth with any particularity the reasons why the trial court erred in sustaining the Commission's objections to [his] exhibits. We are not responsible for making [appellant's] argument for him.").

2. Matthew's second complaint alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance. The record, however, does not demonstrate that Matthew obtained a ruling from the trial court denying his motion for continuance. Failure to obtain a ruling from the trial court on a motion for continuance fails to preserve error for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a);Mitchell v. Bank of Am., N.A., 156 S.W.3d 622, 626 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Moreover, even if the error was preserved, the issue is unsupported by any argument or citation to legal authority. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). As a result, Matthew has failed to establish any basis for reversal of the trial court's decision in his brief.

3. Matthew's remaining complaints concern the trial court's division of the marital estate. Matthew's brief provides us with nothing more than a list of errors committed by the trial court. The appellate brief provides: (1) "the trial court divided the community property in a manner that was disproportionate, inequitable, and manifestly unjust and unfair because the effect of the decree was to award all the personal property and all assets to the wife"; (2) "the honorable judge did not make any attempt to 'harmonize' . . . all of the provisions . . . [of the] property settlement agreement in [the] divorce decree, and each provision must be considered with reference to the whole agreement"; and (3) "the honorable judge [did not properly apply] . . . Texas community property law [or the] Const[itution]." Matthew provides no discussion or argument as to any of the aforementioned complaints.

A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677-78 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2004, pet. denied). The Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant's brief to contain "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to any legal authority presents nothing for the court to review. Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678. Because Matthew's complaints concerning the trial court's division of the marital estate are inadequately briefed, we need not consider these issues on appeal.

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Catherine Stone , Justice