Opinion
No. 05-11-00151-CV
04-25-2012
N.S. MUTHUKUMAR, Appellant v. SANTA ROSA APARTMENTS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed April 25, 2012.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. cc-10-00839-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, FitzGerald, and Lang
Opinion By Justice FitzGerald
Appellant N.S. Muthukumar filed a pro se lawsuit against his landlord, appellee Santa Rosa Apartments, for violating the Texas Property Code. Santa Rosa filed counterclaims against him. After a bench trial, the trial judge signed a judgment ordering Muthukumar to take nothing and awarding damages and attorney's fees to Santa Rosa. Muthukumar appeals. We affirm.
I. Background
Muthukumar was a tenant of the Santa Rosa Apartments in Irving, Texas, from August 2007 until he moved out on or about August 10, 2010. Several months before he moved out, he sued Santa Rosa pro se, complaining about several matters such as a temporarily broken air conditioner and water leakage and mold in the bathroom. He amended his pleading and alleged that Santa Rosa had violated the Texas Property Code by failing to repair or remedy these defects. Santa Rosa filed a counterclaim and alleged that Muthukumar had damaged the apartment and its appliances beyond normal wear and tear, among other things.
A bench trial was held, after which the trial judge signed a judgment ordering Muthukumar to take nothing on his claims and awarding Santa Rosa damages and attorney's fees. The judge later signed findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the judgment. Muthukumar filed a “Request to Modify Judgment,” which the judge denied after a hearing. Muthukumar timely filed a notice of appeal.
II. Analysis
After Muthukumar filed his pro se appellant's brief, we notified him that the brief failed to satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 in several respects. We further notified him that his appeal could be dismissed if he did not file an amended brief within ten days. Muthukumar responded with a letter in which he stated that all necessary elements could be found in his brief. He never filed an amended brief.
Pro se litigants must comply with the rules of procedure. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). Muthukumar's brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. The brief contains no citations to the clerk's record or the reporter's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g), (i) (requiring record references in the statement of facts and argument); Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Jackson, 732 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (en banc) (“This court is not required to search the record for evidence supporting a litigant's position under particular points of error . . . .”). Although Muthukumar cites some legal authorities, he does not apply them to the facts of the case as supported by the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (requiring “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”); In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (issue waived because appellant did not analyze legal authority and made “no suggested application of it to the facts”). Instead, his brief consists principally of conclusory statements, assertions of fact not supported with record references, and accusations that appellee is guilty of bad faith.
We have frequently held that an appellant's issues are waived when supported by inadequate briefing. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Dallas, No. 05-09-00365-CV, 2010 WL 2491024 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 22, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that all of pro se appellant's issues were waived for inadequate briefing and affirming the judgment); Herrell v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 05-08- 00442-CV, 2009 WL 1912687 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 6, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that pro se appellant's sole issue on appeal was inadequately briefed and affirming the judgment). We conclude that Muthukumar's issues are inadequately briefed and resolve his issues against him.
III. Disposition
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE
110151F.P05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
N.S. MUTHUKUMAR, Appellant
V.
SANTA ROSA APARTMENTS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00151-CV
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. cc-10- 00839-E).
Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, Justices Bridges and Lang participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee Santa Rosa Apartments recover its costs of this appeal from appellant N.S. Muthukumar.
Judgment entered April 25, 2012..
KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE