Opinion
No. 05-10-00295-CV
Opinion issued June 17, 2011.
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 09-06855-H.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a trial without a jury, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment on Guadalupe Sanchez Alcaraz's claims against Mario Contreras. Alcaraz appealed the adverse judgment and filed an appellant's brief with this Court in furtherance of her appeal. We notified appellant that her brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure and directed her to file an amended brief that corrected the identified deficiencies. Because appellant's amended brief also fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, we dismiss this appeal.
Our appellate rules have specific rules for briefing that require appellant to state concisely her complaint and provide understandable, succinct and clear argument for why her complaint has merit in fact and law, and cite and apply applicable law along with appropriate record references. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). When deciding whether a brief is deficient, we do not adhere to any rigid rule about the form of a brief, but instead examine each brief closely to determine whether it complies with the rules. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.
In her amended brief, appellant identifies the following three issues: (1) "Whether or not a creditor can bring a lawsuit against the heirs of an estate," (2) "Two parties unmarried at the time can acquire property and at the dissolution of their relationship either by death, termination of their relationship or by other means," (3) "Did the Court properly apply the dead man's statute by a allowing a conversation between defendant Mario Contreras and his deceased father to be into evidence." The amended brief does not contain any record references in the "Statement of the Facts of the Case," which consists of the following paragraph:
Appellant contributed to the support of the decedent who is the father of the [sic] Mario Contreras, the Defendant in the trial court. Appellant put $10,000.00 down on the house on Archer Avenue, according to her testimony, which was not impeached. She paid taxes on the property in the amount of $800.00 and she also paid for the repair of his vehicle which was at least $1,500.00, and she paid other sundry funds not to exceed $20,000.00 during the period from 2000 up to the decedent's death in 2008.
In a one and one-half page unlabeled section in the body of her amended brief, appellant discusses all three of her issues. There is no analysis as to how the legal authority she cites applies to the facts of this case. Moreover, there are only two record references in the entire amended brief. One relates to an exchange between the trial judge and appellant's attorney with respect to the theory on which appellant based her lawsuit against Contreras. The other refers us to appellant's attorney's objection to Contreras's response to a question asked during his cross-examination with respect to whether he knew for a fact the proceeds from his parents' house were used to purchase the house in question. Liberally construing her amended brief in accordance with rule 38.9, we conclude appellant presents nothing but bare assertions of error without any understandable argument for why her complaints have merit in fact or law.
Contreras stated that in a conversation he had with his father, his father said he had purchased the house with proceeds from his divorce decree.
Because appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss this appeal. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896.