Mary E. Allen v. Wells Branch Self Storage, 03-14-00670-CV

Background

Mary E. Allen rented a storage unit from Wells Branch Self Storage and fell delinquent on rent.
Allen sued in justice court alleging she had paid and that a storage employee stole a payment; Wells Branch counterclaimed for unpaid rent and attorney’s fees.
Justice Court entered judgment for Wells Branch; Allen moved for new trial and the County Court at Law #2 (nonjury) affirmed judgment on October 16, 2014, awarding unpaid rent, attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.
Allen filed a pro se appeal and submitted a handwritten brief that largely reasserted factual allegations without raising specific legal points tied to findings or the record.
Wells Branch (appellee) moved to affirm, arguing Allen presented no justiciable issues, waived any appellate complaint by failing to request findings or cite the record, and identified no reversible legal error under Tex. R. App. P. 44.1.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellant presented a justiciable question on appeal	Allen restated factual assertions (timely payments; theft) and generally challenged the judgment	Allen failed to request findings/conclusions or identify specific erroneous findings; general sufficiency/complaints do not present a justiciable issue in a nonjury trial	Appellee: No justiciable question presented; court must presume facts support judgment and affirm
Whether appellant waived appellate arguments by failing to cite the record	Allen provided a brief but did not reference or cite the clerk’s record or specific findings	Failure to cite the record and to comply with Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) waives appellate review; court is not required to scour record for errors	Appellee: Arguments waived for lack of record citations; court need not review unreferenced record
Whether any reversible legal error was alleged under Rule 44.1	Allen did not identify any trial-court legal error or show the error probably caused improper judgment or prevented appellate presentation	No assertion of an error of law that probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or prevented proper presentation on appeal	Appellee: Because no reversible error alleged, judgment must be affirmed
Standard for reviewing nonjury trial when findings not requested	Allen implicitly attacked sufficiency of evidence but raised no specific findings	Where no findings requested/complained of, appellate court must presume supporting findings and may affirm on any legal basis	Appellee: Nonjury appellate complaints must target specific findings; general sufficiency claims do not present justiciable issues

Key Cases Cited

Benefit Trust Life Insurance Company v. Baker, 487 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1972) (general attack on sufficiency does not present a justiciable question).
Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. McDonough, 734 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1987) (complaint must target specific issues rather than the verdict generally).
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants must follow substantive law and rules).
Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) (courts may liberally construe pro se filings but pro se litigants must comply with rules).
Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1992) (legal and factual sufficiency standard in nonjury appeals).
Fiduciary Mortgage Co. v. City Nat’l Bank, 762 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988) (need to request or file findings for justiciable review in nonjury trial).
Point Lookout West, Inc. v. Whorton, 742 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. 1987) (when findings not requested, facts are presumed to support judgment).
Keyes Helium Co. v. Regency Gas Servs., L.P., 393 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (appellate court has no duty to search record for unbriefed error).
Bullock v. American Heart Ass’n, 360 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (appellate court need not independently review record and law to find reversible error).