In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00077-CV ______________________________
DAVID MCDANIEL, Appellant
V.
DON HOUTZ, Appellee
On Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 04-C-596
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A construction vehicle bearing a sign reading "NE TEX Construction, Ltd." sprayed Don Houtz' pickup truck with gravel, causing damage of approximately $1,500.00. In a letter on "NE TEX Construction, Ltd." letterhead signed by "David McDaniel, Owner," McDaniel denied Houtz' claim. Houtz sued McDaniel, individually, in small claims court and prevailed. McDaniel appealed to the Fifth Judicial District Court, where, at a brief bench trial, the only contested issue was whether McDaniel--who indisputably neither drove nor owned the truck that had caused the damage--was individually liable. McDaniel testified that he is a shareholder in a corporation named "NE TEX." McDaniel introduced no corporate articles or other documentation. Neither did McDaniel testify or introduce documentary evidence that the "NE TEX" corporation is the same entity as "NE TEX Construction, Ltd." (1) Houtz introduced the letter in which McDaniel held himself out as the "owner" of "NE TEX Construction, Ltd." The trial court found that the preponderance of the evidence, including the "admission" of ownership, established that the company was not a corporation and that McDaniel was liable under a doctrine of respondeat superior. The court entered judgment against McDaniel, individually, for $1,524.66 plus costs and interest.
McDaniel does not appeal the court's finding that there was no corporation. Instead, McDaniel's one issue on appeal is that Houtz failed to adequately "pierce the corporate veil." In so presenting his one issue, McDaniel presumes--without argument or authority--that (1) the finding of no corporation was incorrect; (2) the corporate form here is a limited partnership; and (3) "piercing the corporate veil" applies to limited partnerships. It is axiomatic that one must only pierce the corporate veil of a corporate form. Cf. Pinebrook Props., Ltd. v. Brookhaven Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n, 77 S.W.3d 487, 499-500 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, pet. denied). The trial court explicitly found that there was no corporate form behind which McDaniel could hide, and this is not appealed. For an issue to be properly before this Court, the issue must be supported by argument and authorities and must contain appropriate citations to the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Accordingly, McDaniel has waived his right to complain that there is a corporate form. See Pat Baker Co. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998); Vawter v. Garvey, 786 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. 1990); Allright, Inc. v. Pearson, 735 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1987); Bowles v. Reed, 913 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tex. App.--Waco 1995, writ denied). Since McDaniel presents this Court with nothing to review, his issue on appeal is overruled.
We affirm the judgment.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: September 5, 2006
Date Decided: December 14, 2006
1. McDaniel submitted, as attachments to his motion for new trial, articles of limited partnership for "NE-TEX CONSTRUCTION, LTD." and the 2005-2006 registration renewal, indicating ownership by "NE-TEX CONSTRUCTION LTD.," for the truck that had caused the damage in 2004. The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. McDaniel does not appeal this issue, thus not preserving the new evidence complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(b).
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00099-CR
______________________________
CURTIS LEO WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court
Hopkins County, Texas
Trial Court No. 0819905
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Curtis Leo Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, namely marihuana, in an amount more than four ounces but less than five poundsa state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(b)(3) (West 2010). The State alleged two prior felony convictions, which elevated the punishment range to a second degree felony. See Act of May 29, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 318, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2734, 2735 (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42 (West 2011)). In a related case, also decided today, Williams has appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in an amount of more than four grams, but less than 200a second degree felony. See Williams v. State, cause number 06-10-00099-CR. Williams has filed a single brief, in which he raises six issues common to both of his appeals.
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Williams appeal in cause number 06-10-00098-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not been shown in this case.
We affirm the trial courts judgment.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: October 17, 2011
Date Decided: November 3, 2011
Do Not Publish