Opinion
No. 05-02-01848-CV.
Opinion Filed June 17, 2003.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-00-04822-c
AFFIRM
Before Justices BRIDGES, O'NEILL, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Rozena Adams, as next friend of Shakenia Walker, a minor, Esral Walker, a minor, and Felondria Walker, a minor, appeal a judgment granted in favor of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). In two issues, appellants contend the trial court erred in assessing costs. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
In November 1999, Rozena Adams was involved in a car accident with a DART bus. Four passengers were in Adams's vehicle at the time of the collision — the minor appellants and Kendra Alford, also a minor. Fannie Alford, as next friend of Kendra Alford, subsequently sued Adams and DART for negligence. Appellants intervened asserting both Adams and DART were liable for their damages. After a trial, the jury found Adams was negligent in the accident, but that DART was not. In accordance with the jury's verdict, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Alford and appellants against Adams, and ordered that Alford and appellants take nothing from DART. The trial court also ordered that DART recover its costs from Alford and appellants.
Adams technically sued herself as next friend of the minor children.
In the first issue, appellants contend the trial court erred in ordering them to pay any portion of DART's costs without a finding of good cause. Under rule 131 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, "[t]he successful party to a suit shall recover of his adversary all costs incurred therein, except where otherwise provided." Tex.R.Civ.P. 131. According to appellants, since they were successful against Adams, they could not be ordered to pay DART's costs. We disagree. As between appellants and DART, DART was clearly the prevailing party. Therefore, under the plain terms of rule 131, DART was entitled to recover its costs from appellants. See id. We resolve the first issue against appellants.
In the second issue, appellants complain of the trial court's apportionment of costs. In this issue, appellants provide no case law or citations to the record to support their contentions. This issue is inadequately briefed and presents nothing to review. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h); Sharpe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, 97 S.W.3d 791, 797 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. filed); Kang v. Hyundai Corp., 992 S.W.2d 499, 503 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.); Bowles v. Clipp, 920 S.W.2d 752, 761 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996, writ denied.). We resolve the second issue against appellants.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.