NUMBER 13-07-00384-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
RADWAN A. DALU, Appellant,
v.
MAHA MANSOUR, Appellee.
On appeal from the 28th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela
This is an appeal from a trial court order to enforce a divorce decree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant's motion for leave to file an amended brief was received on June 20, 2008. The motion was granted in part and carried with the case in part as to the sufficiency of the brief. Upon review of the appellant's brief, we found that it contained numerous formal defects and that the case had not been properly presented. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. On December 17, 2008, we struck appellant's brief, and ordered him to file an amended brief that complied with the appellate rules. In particular, we noted that the brief: (1) did not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by Rule 38.1(g); (2) did not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record, as required by Rule 38.1(i); (3) did not comply with Rule 38.1(f) because it did not state concisely all issues or points presented for review; and (4) did not contain an appropriate index of authorities as required by Rule 38.1(c). See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c),(f),(g),(i).
We also notified appellant that if he failed to comply with the order of the Court and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we might strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a).
Appellant sought and received two extensions of time to file his amended brief. On April 1, 2009, he filed "Plaintiff's Amended Brief" which, upon further inspection, we determine still does not comply with the rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. It contains neither an index of authorities, proper citations to authorities or a clear and concise argument for the contentions made. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c),(i). Accordingly, we strike appellant's brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 (a)(3); see also McCumber v. McCumber, 13-07-00641-CV, 2008 WL 2525624 at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi June 26, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).
The appellate rules provide that if an appellant's brief is not filed, but an appellee's brief is filed, the court may regard that brief as correctly presenting the case and may affirm the trial court's judgment without considering the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(3), McCumber, 2008 WL 2525624 at *1. Appellee, Maha Mansour, filed a brief with this Court on October 28, 2008. We consider appellee's brief as correctly presenting the case and affirm the trial court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(3).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ROSE VELA
Justice
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 21st day of May, 2009.