Opinion
No. 05-08-00873-CV
Opinion issued January 11, 2010.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-08-04918-D.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Patricia Brown appeals the trial court's judgment awarding possession of the residence at 2523 Texas Plume Road, Cedar Hill, Texas, to U.S. Bank National Association. This Court, by letter dated October 24, 2008, notified Brown that her pro se brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and ordered her to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1. On February 2, 2009, appellant filed an amended brief that similarly failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.
Although "Keota Meusourinhakoun" is named in the style of the case in the trial court and in Brown's brief, no such person entered an appearance in the case below or on appeal. Accordingly, Brown remains the only party appealing the trial court's judgment.
We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). The law is well established that, to present an issue to this Court, a party's brief shall contain, among other things, a concise, nonargumentative statement of the facts of the case, supported by record references, and a clear and concise argument for the contention made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; McIntyre v. Wilson, 50 S.W.3d 674, 682 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied). Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error. See Sullivan v. Bickel Brewer, 943 S.W.2d 477, 486 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied); see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (appellate court has discretion to waive point of error due to inadequate briefing). When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, she waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); Howell v. T S Commc'ns, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.).
Brown has failed to bring forward a reporter's record of the underlying forcible entry and detainer proceeding. Brown alleges in her brief the deed of trust on the subject property was in the amount of $787,500. The clerk's record contains the trial court's June 25, 2008 judgment awarding possession of the subject property to U.S. Bank. Brown responded by filing a pro se notice of appeal. In her amended brief, Brown appears to argue she did not receive proper notice to vacate the subject property and did not waive her right to complain of the improper notice by failing to object at trial. However, Brown's argument consists of six lines and cites a single case from 1884. Brown has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that make her appellate complaints viable. See Howell, 130 S.W.3d at 518. By failing to adequately brief her complaints, Brown has waived our review of her complaints. See Sullivan, 943 S.W.2d at 486 (concluding appellant had waived points not supported by argument and authority). Accordingly, we need not further address Brown's complaints.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.