Opinion
No. 05-08-00842-CV
Opinion Filed August 12, 2009.
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. No. 05-08150.
Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises from an October 2004 home equity loan John T. Jenkins obtained from AMC Mortgage Services, Inc. and its affiliate Ameriquest Mortgage Company. The loan was later assigned to WM Specialty Mortgage Company. Jenkins sued appellees in August 2005 alleging Ameriquest loan officer Dianna Knotts and other staff misrepresented and failed to disclose material facts about the loan, the appraisal of the home in connection with the loan, and the lending process. Represented by counsel at the time, Jenkins sued appellees for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the home equity loan provisions of the Texas Constitution. Jenkins also sued appellees for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted appellees' no-evidence summary judgment motion on all of Jenkins's claims and, after trial of appellees' counterclaims for attorney's fees and foreclosure, entered judgment for appellees. In three issues, Jenkins, appearing pro se, appears to complain of evidentiary rulings of the trial court and claimed withholding of evidence by appellees. In two additional issues, Jenkins appears to claim criminal conspiracy and libel.
Litigants who represent themselves are held to the same standards as litigants represented by counsel. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978). To hold otherwise, would give pro se litigants an unfair advantage over litigants with an attorney. Id.; Cooper v. Circle Ten Council Boy Scouts of America, 254 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). Accordingly, Jenkins must comply with the applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield, 573 S.W.2d at 185.
The law is well established that to present an issue for appeal, appellant's brief must contain, among other things, clear and concise argument for appellant's contentions with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.1(i). When a party fails to brief a complaint adequately, he waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint on appeal, a party must also have made a timely complaint to the trial court. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 33.1.
The record here shows this Court notified Jenkins his brief was deficient in multiple respects. The notice made specific recitations to discrete appellate procedural rules, including the requirements for a concise statement of the case, facts supported by record references, and a clear and accurate statement of Jenkins's arguments. After being granted an extension of time to file an amended brief, Jenkins submitted a deficient amended brief containing few references to the record, lengthy citations to cases with no legal analysis or discussion, and insufficient information from which we can determine his specific issues on appeal. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.1(f)-(i). The amended brief does not provide sufficient information to make Jenkins's appellate complaint viable and Jenkins therefore has waived any issues on appeal. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.1; Devine, 130 S.W.3d at 514. Additionally, Jenkins has failed to preserve any complaints regarding conspiracy or libel allegations by failing to present those complaints to the trial court as required by rule 33.1. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 33.1.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.