Opinion
02-23-00440-CV
08-30-2024
Lazaro Cruz, Appellant v. Maria Gonzalez, Appellee
On Appeal from the 236th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 236-324741-21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Wallach, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BONNIE SUDDERTH CHIEF JUSTICE
Appellant Lazaro Cruz filed suit to partition a piece of property, and now-in a 12-page appellate brief lacking any citation to case law-he argues that the trial court erred by failing to order the property's partition. Because Cruz's briefing is woefully inadequate, nothing is presented for our review, and we will affirm.
Half of Cruz's 12-page brief is dedicated to non-substantive components, such as his cover page, listing of parties and counsel, table of contents, index of authorities, statement regarding oral argument, and signature block.
We refrain from describing the judgment's dictates as potentially clarifying documents appear to be missing from our appellate record. Cf. Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) ("The burden is on the appellant to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal.").
I. Briefing Requirements
An appellant bears the burden of identifying and explaining how the trial court erred. Gunderson v. Nat'l Indoor RV Cntrs., LLC, No. 02-24-00025-CV, 2024 WL 3365233, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 11, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). A crucial part of that burden is the appellant's responsibility to "present argument that will enable the [appellate] court to decide the case" by filing a brief that "state[s] . . . the facts . . . supported by record references" and "contain[s] a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(g), (i), 38.9; see Gunderson, 2024 WL 3365233, at *2. While we construe appellate briefs liberally and attempt to reach the merits of the dispute whenever reasonably possible, see Tex. R. App. P. 38.9; Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tex. 2019), absent "appropriate 'citation[s] to the record[,] . . . citations for legal references,' and 'substantive [legal] analysis,' a brief is inadequate to present an issue for our review, and the issue is waived." Gunderson, 2024 WL 3365233, at *2 (quoting NexPoint Advisors, L.P. v. United Dev. Funding IV, 674 S.W.3d 437, 446 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2023, pets. denied)); see In re Guardianship of Onyebuchi, No. 02-13-00401-CV, 2014 WL 4463114, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Sept. 11, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (recognizing that "arguments raised on appeal that are unsupported by analysis or appropriate citation to legal authority and to the record present nothing for us to review").
II. Cruz's Inadequate Briefing
Cruz's brief is sorely lacking in record references, case law citations, or substantive legal analysis.
His statement of facts is less than a single page and contains no record references whatsoever. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g) (providing that statement of facts "must be supported by record references"); Onyebuchi, 2014 WL 4463114, at *1 (holding appellant inadequately briefed issues when his "brief contain[ed] a statement of facts, [but] he . . . failed to cite a single record reference throughout"); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (discussing briefing requirements and noting that a "statements of fact must be supported by direct references to the record"). Moreover, the clerk's record is not cited anywhere in Cruz's brief-in the statement of facts or otherwise. See Shetty v. Arconic Inc., No. 01-19-00158-CV, 2020 WL 2026371, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding issues inadequately briefed when appellant's "brief include[d] a recitation of the facts . . . [but] no record references"); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (recognizing that "[i]f record references are not made . . ., the brief fails").
And the section dedicated to Cruz's legal argument is equally problematic. This section-which fills less than four pages-provides no substantive legal analysis or explanation of why Cruz believes he is entitled to relief. See Gunderson, 2024 WL 3365233, at *3 (holding appellant inadequately briefed all issues due in part to brief's "complete absence of applicable case law or substantive legal analysis"). Cruz dedicates more than half of his four-page argument to lengthy blockquotes from the reporter's record, and he uses most of the remainder to dispute the applicability of a statute mentioned in Gonzalez's closing statement. But Cruz does not identify what statute he believes should have been applied instead. Rather, he issues a two-sentence conclusory statement that, based on broad swaths of statutes and rules-"Chapter 23 of the Property Code and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 756 through 771"-the trial court "ha[d] no option" but to order the partition he requested. Cruz does not pinpoint which specific statute or rule entitles him to relief, nor does he cite to any case law to support his argument. See id. at *4 (holding issues inadequately briefed when appellant broadly referenced "textbook law" without citation to legal authority); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (discussing appellant's briefing responsibilities and noting that "[r]eferences to sweeping statements of general law are rarely appropriate" and that "legal authority applicable to the facts and the questions we are called on to answer must be accurately cited").
In fact, there are no case law citations-zero-anywhere in Cruz's brief. See Gunderson, 2024 WL 3365233, at *3 (holding issues inadequately briefed when "[t]he four sections of [the appellant's] brief . . . dedicate[d] to his four appellate issues lack[ed] any case law whatsoever"). Instead, Cruz appears to assume that this court will fill in the gaps by sifting through the record, researching the relevant case law, and applying the specific provisions and precedent applicable to his case-presumably with the hope that we will select the statutes and precedent that benefit him the most. In other words, "[Cruz], who is represented by [a] licensed attorney[], has put the burden on this court to write his brief for him." De Los Reyes v. Maris, No. 02-21-00022-CV, 2021 WL 5227179, at *10 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Nov. 10, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding appellant waived issue due to inadequate briefing).
But "we do not and cannot assume the responsibility of doing the [appellant's] briefing for [him]." Gunderson, 2024 WL 3365233, at *2 (quoting De Los Reyes, 2021 WL 5227179, at *9). We would be "'abandon[ing] our role as a neutral adjudicator" were we to "search[] the record for facts . . . favorable to a party's position," "do[] the legal research that might support [his] contentions," then "resolv[e] the appeal based on the legal arguments we crafted on [the party's] behalf." Id. at *2-4; Shetty, 2020 WL 2026371, at *2; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.
Given the complete absence of case law in Cruz's brief, the lack of substantive legal analysis, the failure to include any record citations in his statement of facts, and the omission of any references to the clerk's record whatsoever, Cruz has inadequately briefed his sole issue on appeal. As such, the issue is waived. See Gunderson, 2024 WL 3365233, at *4 (holding appellant waived all issues due to his "sparse record references, lack of legal citations, and failure to provide any meaningful analysis of his appellate issues"); Shetty, 2020 WL 2026371, at *2 (holding appellant "waived any error on appeal" when brief "include[d] no record references or citation to any legal authority whatsoever").
III. Conclusion
Because Cruz's inadequate briefing presents nothing for our review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).