Opinion
No. 05-05-01478-CV
Opinion issued June 26, 2006.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 04-6501-E.
Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and RICHTER.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is the appeal of a suit on a sworn account. In seven issues, Vivian Brumley appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Image Cleaners Laundry, Inc. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
In her first issue, appellant contends the "trial court did not have authority to sign the order" because the contract at issue in this case had an arbitration clause. She claims the trial court had no jurisdiction in light of the arbitration clause.
"Jurisdiction" deals with the power of a court to determine an action involving a particular subject matter between certain parties and to render a judgment regarding the same. Kshatrya v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n, 97 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (citing Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2000)). Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case; it is never presumed, it cannot be waived, nor can it be conferred by consent, waiver, estoppel, or agreement. See Dubai Petroleum Co., 12 S.W.3d at 76; . Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 442-43 (Tex. 1993); Kshatrya, 97 S.W.3d at 829. A county court at law has "jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings, civil and criminal, original and appellate, prescribed by law for county courts," including civil cases in which "the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $100,000." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 25.003(a), (c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2005); see Houston Mun. Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 177 S.W.3d 502, 512 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st] 2005, pet. filed).
In this civil case, the amount in controversy alleged in appellee's original petition was in excess of $5,000; this amount falls within the government code's mandated jurisdictional amount for a county court at law. Thus, the county court at law had jurisdiction over the case.
In reaching this conclusion, we reject appellant's argument that the county court at law was deprived of jurisdiction because the contract "between Plaintiff and defendant clearly states" that any dispute between the parties shall be decided by the "applicable small claims court . . . [or] the American Arbitration Association." The contract to which appellant refers is not present in the record on appeal. Although she includes a copy of the contract as an exhibit to her brief, a document not admitted as an exhibit in the trial court below may not be submitted as an exhibit or appendix to a brief. Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no writ) (attachment of documents as exhibits or appendices to briefs does not constitute formal inclusion in record on appeal and, therefore, documents cannot be considered); Bencon Mgmt. Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. Boyer, Inc., 178 S.W.3d 198, 210 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 2005, no pet.) (same). Because the contract appellant relies on was not admitted below and because the trial court had jurisdiction in this case, we overrule appellant's first issue.
In her second and seventh issues, appellant attacks rulings on "the contract." In her fifth and sixth issues, she raises estoppel and laches. For the reasons that follow, we decline to address these issues.
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, she waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 513-14 (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.).
Appellant's issues do not contain any record cites. It appears these complaints also address the contract appellant attached as an exhibit to her brief. As noted previously, that contract was not admitted at trial and is not before the Court. See Adams v. Reynolds Tile Flooring, Inc., 120 S.W.3d 417, 423 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 2003, no pet.) (stating that attachment of documents as appendices to briefs does not constitute formal inclusion in appellate record). Appellant does not offer any legal analysis or discussion regarding which particular elements of the contract she claims were breached, nor does she point to where in the trial court record she proved the elements of breach of contract. She similarly fails to analyze, argue, or discuss the doctrines of estoppel or laches and does not present a viable argument as to why they apply to her case. In sum, appellant has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that make her appellate complaints under these four issues viable. See Howell, 130 S.W.3d at 518. By failing to adequately brief her complaints, appellant has waived issues two, five, six, and seven. See Sullivan, 943 S.W.2d at 486 (concluding appellant had waived points not supported by argument and authority).
In her two remaining issues, appellant attacks the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages award and claims the damages are excessive. For the reasons that follow, we overrule these final two issues.
Appellees sued appellant, asserting claims for a suit on a sworn account. The elements necessary to prove a suit on a sworn account are (i) a sale and delivery of goods or services, (ii) the charges on account are just (prices are charged in accordance with agreement or, in absence of agreement, are usual, customary, and reasonable prices for that good or service), and (iii) the amount remains unpaid. Tex. R. Civ. P. 185. The cause of action must be supported by the affidavit of the party, his agent, or attorney "taken before some officer authorized to administer oaths, to the effect that such claim is, within the knowledge of affiant, just and true, that it is due, and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed." Tex. R. Civ. P. 185. If properly filed, a plaintiff's petition for a suit on a sworn account and affidavit supporting that petition become prima facie evidence of the debt. Andrews v. E. Tex. Med. Ctr.-Athens, 885 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.); Enernational Corp. v. Exploitation Engineers, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex. R. Civ. P. 185. Appellees' affidavit contained all the required components and was attached to their June 4, 2002 petition; thus, appellees' pleading was prima facie proof of appellant's debt.
A party resisting a sworn claim must "comply with the rules of pleading as are required in any other kind of suit" must timely file a written denial, under oath. Tex. Rs. Civ. P. 93(10) 185. In the absence of a sworn denial meeting the requirements of the rule, the account is received as prima facie evidence against the party. Vance v. Holloway, 689 S.W.2d 403, 404 (Tex. 1985). An opponent that does not properly file a written denial under oath will not be permitted to dispute the receipt of services or the correctness of the charges. Vance, 689 S.W.2d at 404. In this case, appellant did not file a sworn denial. Therefore, she may not "dispute the receipt of the items or services, or the correctness of the stated charges." See Rizk v. Fin. Guardian Ins. Agency, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Tex. 1979). Because she did not file a sworn denial, appellant may not deny the claim or attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support it. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's final two issues.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.