Opinion
NO. 01-19-00762-CV
03-23-2021
NOAH DANIEL RADBIL AND THE LAW OFFICE OF NOAH D. RADBIL, PLLC, Appellants v. MEDARD INTEREST, INC., CLAUDE PHILLIPE MEDARD, AND CLAUDE PIERRE MEDARD, Appellees
On Appeal from the 281st District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2019-22529
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court's September 25, 2019 order denying appellant's motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. We affirm.
Background
In July 2016, Claude Pierre Medard, Sr. (hereinafter "Claude") contacted attorney Noah Daniel Radbil seeking legal assistance to clear title and recover possession of a property owned by Medard Interest, Inc. Radbil drafted a representation agreement between his firm and Claude. The proposed agreement required that Claude sign and return it to agree to representation, and the proposed agreement contained an arbitration clause. Claude never signed the agreement. Eventually, Medard Interest, Inc. and its two principals—Claude and his son—sued Radbil and his professional entity. Radbil sought to stay the litigation and compel arbitration based on the unsigned representation contract's arbitration clause. The trial court denied Radbil's motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation.
After timely filing a notice of appeal, Radbil filed an emergency motion to stay the underlying proceeding for 30 days due to a medical condition and to find representation. In February 2020, this court granted the motion and directed Radbil to provide a 30-day update with evidence of his efforts to obtain counsel in the trial court and an update on his medical condition. Radbil submitted a brief on his own behalf to this court in April 2020. This court notified Radbil that his brief did not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (setting out requisites for appellant's brief). In May 2020, Radbil submitted a corrected brief. Appellees responded and moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). Id. R. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal for failure to comply with appellate rules).
Inadequate Briefing
Radbil's brief seeks an order requiring the parties to arbitrate. Appellees respond that this issue is waived because it is inadequately briefed. We agree.
An appellant's brief "must" contain, among other things, a statement of facts setting forth "the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented." TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g). It also "must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." Id. R. 38.1(i). "Rule 38 requires [a party] to provide us with such discussion of the facts and the authorities relied upon as may be requisite to maintain the point at issue." Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied.). We are "to construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of a rule." Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex. Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997)). A brief is sufficient and does not waive an issue if it "contains all points of error relied upon, argument and authorities under each point of error, and all facts relied upon for the appeal with references to the pages in the record where those facts can be found." City of Arlington v. State Farm Lloyds, 145 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Weaver v. Sw. Nat'l Bank, 813 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tex. 1991)). However, a brief that does not contain citations to appropriate authorities and to the record for a given issue waives that issue. Abdelnour v. Mid Nat'l Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (because brief provided "no citation to the record, nor any discussion of relevant or analogous authorities to assist the Court in evaluating its claim," appellant waived point of error); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (stating that, despite liberal interpretation of Rules of Appellate Procedure, "parties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law supports [sic] their contentions").
Radbil's amended brief fails to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Procedure 38.1. In addition to failing to include a table of contents, list of authorities, or identity of the parties, Radbil's brief does not contain a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to legal authority and the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. He seeks an order compelling arbitration, but he does not explain the procedural history leading to his appeal, nor explain why the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel arbitration. In the "Summary" section of his brief, he states, "One Appellee is a party to that contract and the other is not," but he fails to articulate which specific entities should be bound by the alleged contract. His brief does not name the parties nor argue with sufficient clarity that they are required to arbitrate any disputes.
A party asserting error on appeal bears the burden of showing that the record supports the contention raised and of specifying the place in the record where matters upon which it relies or of which it complains are shown. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word, Houston, Tex. v. Gobert, 992 S.W.2d 25, 31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). When this burden is not carried, the party waives the point of error. Id.
Although we interpret rule 38.1(i)'s briefing requirements liberally, parties "must put forth some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law supports [sic] their contentions." San Saba Energy, 171 S.W.3d at 338. Radbil's brief does not articulate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, what claims at issue fall within the scope of that agreement, or how a non-signatory, to the extent one exists, should be bound by the agreement. Appellate courts are not required to sift through the record without guidance from the party to find support for a party's assertion of error. Crider v. Crider, No. 01-10-00268-CV, 2011 WL 2651794 at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 7, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Because Radbil's amended brief fails to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, he has waived his issues on appeal. See Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 106 S.W.3d at 127-28; Izen v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 322 S.W.3d 308, 321-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).
Conclusion
We affirm the order of the trial court. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Peter Kelly
Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Rivas-Molloy.