1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 8 4 - CV L EQU I TA SM I TH A ND ALL APPE L L AN TS O CCU PANTS V . C O M PA SS B A N K A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 1 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- O n A p r il 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 , a p p e lla n t s , a c t i n g p r o s e , f ile d t h e irb r ie fw it h t h is cou rt . O n A pr i l 1 6, 2 009 , w e not i f i ed appe l l ant s t hatt hei rbr i efw asde f ec t i ve i n s ubs t anc e a nd f or m , spec i f i ca l l y l i st i ng t he w aysi n w hi ch t hei rbr i efdi d not c o m p l yw i th th e ru l e so f a p p e l l a te p ro c e d u re . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 6 .3 , 3 8 .1 (c ), (d), (f )– (i ). W e also sta ted tha t fai l u re t o fi l e an am e n d e d b ri e f co m p l y i n g w i th t he r ul es on orbe f or e Apr i l 27, 2009 co ul d r es ul ti n ours t r i ki ng t he2

nonc om pl i antbr i ef , w ai verofan y no nco nf or m i ng po i nt s, ordi sm i ss aloft he a p p e a l . S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 38. 8( a) , 38. 9( a) , 42. 3. Appel l ant s f i l ed a m ot i on r equ es t i ng t hr eead di t i ona l dayst o c om pl et e t he br i ef , w hi ch t hi s cou rtgr ant ed, b u t t h e n ap p e l l a n ts fail e d to fi l e an am e n d e d b ri e f. R ul e 38 . 9 p r ovi des t hat“subst ant i alcom pl i ance” w i t h t he br i ef i ng r ul es i sre q u i re d , s u b je c tt o e x c e p ti o n s . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .9 . F i rs t, i f th e c o u rt det er m i nest hatt he br i ef i ng r ul eshave bee n f l agr ant l y vi ol at ed ast o f or m , t he c o u rt m a yre q u i re a p a rtyto a m e n d , su p p l e m e n t, o r re d ra w a b ri e f. Id . 3 8 .9 (a ). I fa part y f i l es an othe rb r i eft hatdoe s notco m pl y, t he cou rtm ay st r i ket he br i ef , pr ohi bi tt he part y f r om f i l i ng a not her , an d pr oce ed asi ft he part y di d not fi l e a b ri e f. Id . It i sa n a p p e l l a n t’sb u rd e n t o d i s c u s sh i so r h e r a s s e rti o n so f e rro r. S ee Canton- Carter

v. Bayl

or Col leg e o f Med. , 271 S . W . 3d 928, 930 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h D i st . ] 2 008 , pet . f i l ed) . A n appel l at e c ourtha s no du t y, o re v e n t h e rig h t , t o p e r f o r m a n in d e p e n d e n tre v ie w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d a p p lic a b le l a w to d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e re w a se rro r. Id. M or eov er , i n ad di t i on t o a conci se st at em ento fal l i ssues pr esent ed f orrevi ew , an ap pel l ant ’ s br i efm ust a l so co n tai n a c l e a r a n d c o n c i se a rgu m e n t th a t i n c l u d e s a p p rop ri a te c i tati o n s to l e g a l a u th o ri tya n d th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd . Id. a t931.3

H e re , a l th o u g h a p p e l l a n ts ’ b ri e f i sl e n g th ya n d e x te n s i v e , n o i s s u e sa re pr esent ed. I nst ead, i n t w o l ocat i ons ofap pel l ant s’ b r i ef , t hey st at e ( 1) “Pl ease l ett he D ef end antpr ovew hen t hi s pr op ert y w asr e- pos t ed f orw r ongf ul f or ec l os ur e a ft ert he t em por ary r es t r ai ni ng or derw ass i gne d, ” and ( 2) “ Pr ove w her e Def end antha d pe r m i ss i on f r om t he C ount y Courto fL aw t o go t o J P C ourt and get an or der f or For ci bl e Entry w hen t he hear i ng had n o t been s c h e d u l e d y e t fo r tri a l .”E x a m i n i n g th e e n ti re tyo f a p p e l l a n ts ’ b ri e f, h o w e v e r, w e a r e u nab l e t o di sc er n any com pl ai nt abo ut anyal l ege d t r i alco urter r or . And app el l ant s’ t w o s t at em ent s l abe l ed as “Ar gum ent s” f ai l t o c i t e l ega l au t hor i t y, t o ci t e t o t he appel l at e r ecor d, and t o pr ovi de any subst ant i ve anal ysi s. A ccor di n g l y , because t hi s courti nf or m ed appel l ant s oft he subst ant i al def ect s i n t hei rbr i efand because app el l ant s f ai l ed t o f i l e an am ended br i ef cur i ng t hos e d ef ec t s, w e s t r i keap pel l ant s’ br i efan d di sm i sst he app ea l f orw ant o f p ro s e c u ti o n . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .8 (a )(1 ), 3 8 .9 (a ), 4 2 .3 (c ); Newm an v. Cl a rk , 1 1 3 S .W .3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 3 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.); see al so Canton- Carter, 271 S . W . 3d at931 ( det er m i ni ng t hatapp el l an t ’ s i ss ueson a pp e a l d i d no t m e e t t he r e qu i r e m e nt s of Te xa s Rul e o fApp e l l a t e Pr oc e du r e 38 b e c a u s e th e y d o n o t p o i n t o u t a n ye rro r a l l e g e d l yc o m m i tte d b yth e tri a l c o u rt2 ... O urdi sm i ss alof app el l ant s’ app ea l m ak es app el l ant s’ pe ndi ng m ot i on

reg a rding the d o c k e ti n g sta tem e n t m o o t. 4 o r e v e n a tta c kth e m e ri ts o f th e tri a l c o u rt’sj u d g m e n t, n o r d i d a p p e l l a n t’s a rg u m e n ts c i te l e g a l a u th o ri tyo r p ro v i d e s u b s ta n ti v e a n a l y s i s ). 2

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: W A LKER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J ul y 9, 2009