AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed February 27, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00633-CV
THOMAS J. ELLIS, Appellant
V.
THE RENAISSANCE ON TURTLE CREEK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-01827-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang
Opinion by Justice Moseley
Thomas J. Ellis owned a condominium at The Renaissance on Turtle Creek. He now
appeals from the trial court’s order granting possession of the condominium to The Renaissance
on Turtle Creek Condominium Association, Inc. (Association) after the Association purchased
the condominium at a sheriff’s sale. Ellis presents a single issue: “Did the Justice Court lack
jurisdiction on the forcible detainer given there was (and still is) a clear dispute over proper title
and the superior right to immediate possession?” The background of the case and the evidence
adduced below are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here. Because the
dispositive issue is settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a),
47.4. Because Ellis’s amended brief does not comply with our appellate rules, we conclude
nothing is presented for review and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Ellis has represented himself throughout this case. Although he is pro se, Ellis is required
to adhere to the rules of evidence and procedure, including our appellate rules of procedure. See
Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no
pet.). Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing that require, among other
things, that an appellant provide a statement of the case, which includes references to the record;
a statement of facts, which includes references to the record; a summary of the argument; and an
argument that is clear and concise with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX.
R. APP. P. 38.1 (d), (g), (h), and (i). Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we
discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal.
We are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s
position. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. If we did so, even for a pro se litigant untrained in
law, we would be abandoning our role as judges and become an advocate for that party. See id.
When deciding whether an appellant’s brief is deficient, we do not adhere to any rigid
rule about the form of a brief. Pro se litigants may not be versed in the form of briefing favored
by seasoned appellate practitioners. We do, however, examine briefs for compliance with
prescribed briefing rules, including rule 38.1. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. If we can conclude a brief
complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we submit the appeal for review and
decision on the merits. In this case, we conclude Ellis’s amended brief fails to comply with our
briefing rules.
Although Ellis presented an issue as he was required to do by rule 38.1(f), his amended
brief does not make any argument about the justice court’s jurisdiction. Rather, his amended
brief provides a history of his disputes with the Association (without any citations to the record).
The amended brief also includes a section titled “Statement of Facts;” not only do the statements
in this section not state the facts relating to this appeal, but the section includes no citations to the
–2–
record. There are not any citations to the record anywhere in Ellis’s amended brief. Bare
assertions of error without citation to the record waive error. Washington v. Bank of New York,
362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). Further, although Ellis’s amended brief
includes a list of authorities, he does not make any argument citing authorities.
We gave Ellis an opportunity to cure the defects in his briefing. Ellis filed his initial brief
on August 30, 2013. On September 10, 2013, we notified Ellis that his brief was deficient and
provided him with an opportunity to amend. Ellis’s amended brief was received on September
20, 2013. However, his amended brief also does not comply with our briefing rules.
Because Ellis’s amended brief does not provide a statement of the case, a proper
statement of facts, which includes references to the record, a summary of his argument, or an
argument that is clear and concise with appropriate citations to authorities and the record, his
amended brief fails to comply with our rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (d), (g), (h), and (i);
Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. Ellis has failed to present his argument for review and has waived
his complaint.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
130633F.P05 JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
THOMAS J. ELLIS, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-13-00633-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-01827-C.
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley.
THE RENAISSANCE ON TURTLE Justices Francis and Lang participating.
CREEK CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee The Renaissance on Turtle Creek Condominium
Association, Inc. recover its costs of this appeal and the full amount of the trial court’s judgment
from appellant Thomas J. Ellis.
Judgment entered this 27th day of February, 2014.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
–4–