Opinion
No. 05-07-00087-CV
Opinion Filed April 7, 2008.
On Appeal from the 193rd District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 04-31589-T-L.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Dewayne Bookman appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Dallas County, the City of Dallas, the Dallas Independent School District, the Dallas County School Equalization Fund, the Dallas Community College District, and the Parkland Hospital District (Dallas County). This Court, by order dated July 3, 2007, notified Bookman that his pro se brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and ordered him to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1. On July 16, 2007 appellant filed an amended brief that similarly 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) (appellate court has discretion to waive point of error due to inadequate briefing). 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.).
The record shows that, in March 2005, Bookman filed a pro se pleading in opposition to Dallas County's original petition seeking foreclosure of tax liens on Bookman's real property. Although service was attempted on several other parties presumably having an interest in the subject property, Bookman was the only one to respond. In April 2005, Bookman filed a pro se application for a bench warrant stating that he was currently incarcerated and required a bench warrant so that he could appear in the underlying proceedings. The trial court granted a continuance and eventually granted Dallas County's motion for the appointment of an attorney ad litem to represent Bookman. The trial court appointed an attorney ad litem who filed on behalf of Bookman an answer generally denying Dallas County's claims, requesting the trial court to require Dallas County to prove its claims, and praying that Dallas County take nothing on its claims. On October 25, 2006, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Dallas County and ordered a foreclosure sale of the subject property. Again, only Bookman responded by filing a pro se notice of appeal.
In his amended brief, Bookman appears to argue that Dallas County "lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the person" in the underlying suit to collect delinquent property taxes. However, Bookman 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, Bookman has waived our review of his 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 Bookman's complaints.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.