Opinion
No. 05-05-00892-CV.
Opinion issued February 7, 2007
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 3-1315-05.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Para Lee Salters appeals the trial court's judgment of possession in favor of WM Specialty Mortgage, L.L.C. Although the Clerk of this Court, by letter dated January 24, 2006, notified Salters that her pro se brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure, Salters filed an amended brief that similarly failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.
We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). 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, he waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 514 (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.).
In her brief, Salters sets forth the following issues:
1.) Did the [trial court] err by granting a favorable judgment to the defendant based on the Plaintiff layman [sic] term "the defendant do [sic] not have an invested interest in the property," instead of requesting a "dismissal" in legal terms?
2) The [trial court] and in failed to leniently construe the pleadings of a pro se litigant.
In her brief, Salters sets forth the following "counts" in separate paragraphs: negligence, impairment of credit rating, defamation, interference with her prospective economic advantage, injunction, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the paragraphs following each "count," Salters merely restates the claim listed and does not provide any citation to the record or relevant authorities. Salters has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that make her appellate complaints viable. See Howell, 130 S.W.3d at 518. By failing to adequately brief her complaints, Salters has waived our review of her complaints. See Sullivan, 943 S.W.2d at 486 (concluding appellant had waived points not supported by argument and authority). Accordingly, we need not further address Salters' complaints.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.