Tom J. Trammell v. Frost National Bank ( 2006 )

Opinion issued December 7, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas  

---

NO. 01-05-00216-CV

__________

TOM J. TRAMMELL, Appellant

V.

FROST NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2004-34356

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

The entirety of Tom Trammell's brief under the heading "STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT" is as follows:

Tom Trammel was willing to try and work with the bank prior to the hiring of Chernosky Smith et. al. Once the law firm was hired there was no willingness by the law firm to try and amicably resolve the situation.

Chernosky, Smith et. al.'s representation of Frost National Bank is a conflict and violates the Texas Disciplinary and Ethical Standards. The Plaintiff Counsel's long term relationship with Tom Trammell on personal and business transactions, as well as being co-defendants on another suit clearly tainted the law firm's ability to negotiate this transaction in good faith.

When the court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff, it also granted attorneys fees which represent 34% of the balance of the note. That is an unreasonable amount based on the type of case and the amount of work actually performed by the attorney.

Inadequate Briefing

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h) requires appellate briefs to "contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Issues on appeal are waived if an appellant fails to support his contention by citations to appropriate authority or cites only to a single non-controlling case. We are "to construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of a rule." Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex. Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997)). A brief is sufficient and does not waive an issue if it "contains all points of error relied upon, argument and authorities under each point of error, and all facts relied upon for the appeal with references to the pages in the record where those facts can be found ." City of Arlington v. State Farm Lloyds, 145 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Weaver v. Sw. Nat'l Bank, 813 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tex. 1991)). However, a brief that does not contain citations to appropriate authorities and to the record for a given issue waives that issue. Abdelnour v. Mid Nat'l Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (because brief provided "no citation to the record, nor any discussion of relevant or analogous authorities to assist the Court in evaluating its claims," appellant waived point of error); see also San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (stating that, despite liberal interpretation of Rules of Appellate Procedure, "parties asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis showing that the record and the law supports [sic] their contentions").
Trammell's brief contains no citations to the clerk's record, makes no effort to reference evidence in the record to support its position on appeal, and, in fact, offers no specific issues on appeal. Trammell's brief is not sufficiently developed because it provides no argument or authority to show why the actions of the trial court were erroneous. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. He has not cited authorities for his contentions. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). A party asserting error on appeal bears the burden of showing that the record supports the contention raised and of specifying the place in the record where matters upon which it relies or of which it complains are shown. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word, Houston, Tex. v. Gobert, 992 S.W.2d 25, 31 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). Where this burden is not carried, the party waives the point of error. Id.

We hold Trammell has waived any error.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

George C. Hanks, Jr.

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Higley.