JOHN MARGETIS v. NANCY PETTERSON AND RUPERT KEEPING (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court has before it appellees' September 20, 2011motion to dismiss this appeal and appellant's September 30, 2011 objection to that motion.   Appellees argue that appellant's amended brief does not comply with the rules.   See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1.

Appellant raises six issues in his brief, with a “summary of argument” section for each issue, but no argument section.   Most of the issues have only one or two sentences in the summary of argument, with no citation to authority or to the appellate record.   For issue number five, appellant has provided one paragraph of citations to cases explaining the elements of a quantum meruit cause of action.   Issue number six is not addressed at all in the summary of argument.   There are no citations to the appellate record anywhere in appellant's brief.   He has attached an appendix to his brief, but has not identified the source of those documents or whether they can be found in the record.

To properly present an issue on appeal, a party's brief must contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.”  City of Brownsville ex rel. Pub. Util. Bd. v. AEP Texas Cent. Co., ––– S.W.3d –––, No. 05–09–00808–CV, 2011 WL 2739644, at *6 (Tex.App.-Dallas July 15, 2011, no pet. h.).   If a party asserts error without argument or authority, the error has been waived on appeal.   See Sullivan v. Bickel & Brewer, 943 S.W.2d 477, 486 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied).   Moreover, it is not the duty of this Court to make an independent search of the record for evidence to support appellant's position.  2218 Bryan Street, Ltd. v. City of Dallas, 175 S.W.3d 58, (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied).

Appellant's amended brief fails to meet the requirements of the appellate rules.   Accordingly, we grant appellees' motion and dismiss this appeal.

101281F.P05

PER CURIAM