Juanita J. Garofalo v. Check Into Cash of Texas, LLC ( 2013 )

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 24, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01193-CV
JUANITA J. GAROFALO, Appellant
V.
CHECK INTO CASH OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 006-1473-2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Evans
Juanita J. Garofalo, representing herself without an attorney, appeals from the trial
court’s final judgment that she take nothing on her claims against appellee Check Into Cash of
Texas, LLC. The judgment also awarded appellee damages and attorney’s fees on its
counterclaim. In five points of error, appellant generally contends that the trial court erred in
excluding certain evidence. The facts of this case are well known to the parties and we do not
recite them here. Further, because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this
memorandum opinion pursuant to rule 47.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having
reviewed the record and concluded appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
This dispute arose from a loan transaction between the parties. After appellant defaulted
on the loan, the truck she had pledged as security for the loan was repossessed by appellee.
Appellant then sued appellee in small claims court asserting intentional infliction of emotional
distress and alleging the wrongful repossession of her vehicle. Appellee counterclaimed for the
outstanding balance due on the loan and attorney’s fees. After a trial, the small claims court
rendered a take-nothing judgment on appellant’s suit and awarded appellee damages and
attorney’s fees on its counterclaim. Appellant appealed the judgment to the county court at law,
and, following a non-jury trial, the county court also rendered an adverse judgment on
appellant’s claims and awarded appellee damages and attorney’s fees on its counterclaim. This
appeal ensued.
Although appellant concedes in her amended appellate brief that she failed to make her
loan payment when due, she asserts that her reasons for nonpayment establish that appellee’s
repossession of her truck was wrongful and intentionally malicious. In her five points of error,
appellant generally complains that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence at trial. We
review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion
standard. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998). We
must uphold the ruling if the record shows any legitimate basis supporting the trial court’s ruling.
See id. Even if we determine the trial court’s evidentiary ruling is erroneous, we may not
reverse the trial court unless the error probably caused rendition of an improper judgment. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(1); Malone, 972 S.W.2d at 43.
In her first point of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in excluding evidence at
trial that she previously presented to the trial court as attachments to her response to appellee’s
motion for summary judgment. She further contends it was error for the trial court to determine
there was a fact issue precluding summary judgment in appellees’ favor but not consider her
summary judgment evidence at trial. The trial court’s hearing on appellee’s summary judgment
motion was a separate and distinct proceeding heard immediately before the trial on the merits.
–2–
The trial court’s ruling denying appellee’s summary judgment motion merely indicated that
appellee did not meet its summary judgment burden of establishing that there were no genuine
issues of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues
expressly set out in the motion. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). The mere fact that appellant
attached certain documents and other items to her response to appellee’s motion for summary
judgment did not relieve appellant of her burden at the trial to introduce probative and relevant
evidence to support her claims and defenses in accordance with the Texas Rules of Evidence. To
the extent that appellant asserts the trial court was required to consider the attachments to her
summary judgment response at the trial without these documents and other attachments being
properly admitted into evidence, her contention is not well-taken and she provides no legal
authority to support such a position. We overrule appellant’s first point of error.1
With respect to her remaining four points of error, appellant specifically challenges the
exclusion of evidence regarding (1) her disability status and certain disability laws under which
she claims she was entitled to protection, (2) “the specific situation that [appellant] finds
protection under stated elements and authorities, laws, and statutes,” (3) “[appellee’s] admission
to having caused damages stated in PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM,” and (4)
“precedent of malice and intent as a contributing factor to [appellee’s] willful disregard of
protective elements and authorities, laws, and statutes . . . .” Our review of the reporter’s record
indicates that the only excluded evidence that appellant attempted to admit at trial were repair
documents for appellant’s truck,2 a Wikipedia definition regarding psychological injury, a
1
Appellant also complains under this point of error that the trial court’s final judgment incorrectly states that
the matter was heard on July 26, 2012. The reporter’s record indicates that the summary judgment hearing and trial
were held on August 9, 2013. However, appellant has made no attempt to show how this clerical error in the
judgment resulted in reversible error. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a).
2
These documents were not marked for identification and do not appear among the list of exhibits offered by
plaintiff in the exhibit volume of the reporter’s record. However, the reporter’s record reflects the trial court
sustained appellee’s hearsay and relevancy objections to the documents.
–3–
prescription requesting permanent handicap placards, a radiologist report, audio recording of an
employee of appellee, a list of appellant’s medications, and two law excerpts.3 The trial court
sustained appellee’s various authentication, relevancy, and hearsay objections to this proffered
evidence.
While asserting the trial court erred in excluding this evidence, appellant’s amended brief
provides no argument, discussion, or legal authority to support her contentions, nor does she
address or provide any legal analysis concerning the objections appellee raised to the evidence
she offered at trial or explain why the trial court erred in sustaining such objections. Moreover,
appellant presents no argument or discussion with respect to how the excluded evidence
probably caused rendition of an improper judgment on her claims or appellee’s counterclaim.
Further, our review of the record reveals that some of the evidence appellant asserts was
improperly excluded was in fact never offered into evidence at the trial.
Our appellate rules have specific briefing provisions that require appellant to state
concisely the alleged error and provide an understandable, succinct, and clear argument to
support her contentions, and cite and apply relevant law together with appropriate record
citations. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist.,
315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2010, no pet.). Appellant filed her amended brief
after we notified her by letter of various deficiencies in her original appellant’s brief. Those
deficiencies included, but were not limited to, a failure to contain a succinct, clear, and accurate
statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief and the arguments’ failure to contain
appropriate citations to the record and authorities. Appellant has failed to comply with the
briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so.
3
Appellant apparently abandoned her attempt to admit into evidence the audio recording that was on her laptop
when it appeared she would have to tender the entire laptop.
–4–
Because appellant’s points of error two through five are inadequately briefed, they present
nothing for our review. See Cooper v. Cochran, 288 S.W.3d 522, 530–31 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2009, no pet.).
Nevertheless, to the extent appellant’s amended brief can be construed to argue that the
excluded evidence necessarily precluded appellee from exercising its right of repossession under
the parties’ contract or established appellant’s right to prevail on her affirmative claims, our
review of the record does not support these contentions. Having failed to meet her burden of
establishing that the trial court reversibly erred in excluding the evidence of which appellant
complains, we overrule appellant’s second, third, fourth, and fifth points of error.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
121193F.P05
/David Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JUANITA J. GAROFALO, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 6, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-12-01193-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 006-1473-2012.
Opinion delivered by Justice Evans,
CHECK INTO CASH OF TEXAS, LLC, Justices Lang and Myers participating.
Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee CHECK INTO CASH OF TEXAS, LLC recover its costs
of this appeal from appellant JUANITA J. GAROFALO.
Judgment entered this 24th day of July, 2013.
/David Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
–6–