Washington v. Bank of New York
Decision Date | 13 March 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 05–10–00450–CV.,05–10–00450–CV. |
Citation | 362 S.W.3d 853 |
Parties | Emmett WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, As Trustee for the Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset–Backed Certificates, Series 2004–7, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Brinkley, Brinkley Law PLLC, Ft. Worth, TX, Emmett Washington, Garland, TX, for Appellant.
Anthony Waddell, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, Addison, TX, Robert F. Maris, Robert S. Alcorn, Matthew Wiley Lindsey, Maris & Lanier, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
Before Justices BRIDGES, O'NEILL, and FILLMORE.
Emmett Washington appeals the trial court's judgment granting possession of certain real property to the Bank of New York, as trustee for the certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., asset-backed certificates series 2004–7. This Court, by letter dated June 9, 2011, notified Washington that his pro se brief 1 did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and directed him to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1. In response, appellant filed on June 20, 2011 a document entitled “Affidavit of Notice of Appeal and Counterclaim.” However, this document also failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.
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) ( ). When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, he 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).
In his “brief,” Washington 2 appears to argue his attorney's legal representation was unprofessional, and he is entitled to reversal of the trial court's judgment. However, Washington has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that make his appellate complaints viable. See Howell, 130 S.W.3d at 518. By failing to adequately brief his complaints, Washington has waived our review of his complaints. See Sullivan, 943 S.W.2d at 486 ( ). Further, appellant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schrock v. City of Baytown
...claim, we need not address this portion of Schrock's second issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 47.1 ; Washington v. Bank of N.Y. , 362 S.W.3d 853, 854–55 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (party who does not adequately brief a complaint on appeal waives his issue); see also Indian Beach Prop. ......
-
Fallon v. Univ. of Tex. MD Anderson Cancer Ctr.
...did not present any issue or argument directly addressing error and only attempted to raise complaint in its prayer); Washington v. Bank of N.Y. , 362 S.W.3d 853, 854–55 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (party who does not adequately brief complaint on appeal waives his issue); Dove v. Grah......
-
Ivory v. State
...38.1(i). As a result, "[b]are assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error." Washington v. Bank of New York, 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.). "When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal." Id. at 854-55. Despite h......
-
In re G.P.
...not do the job of the advocate."). And a party who fails to adequately brief a complaint waives his issue on appeal. Washington v. Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854-55 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.); see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284-85 (Tex. 1994......