DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00818-CV 

ESTHER ATIGOGO, Appellant 

V. 

TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 007-03182-2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

After reviewing appellant’s pro se brief, we notified her that her brief was 

deficient and provided a detailed explanation of why her brief did not meet the 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. We noted that among other 

things, appellant failed to provide a statement of facts and failed to provide a clear 

and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities or to the record. We 

directed appellant to file an amended brief and cautioned her that failure to do so 

might result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. Although given 

the opportunity to file a corrected brief, appellant declined to do so. 
 –2– 

 An appellant’s brief must substantially comply with the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure—even if the appellant is pro se. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9; Washington v. 

Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App—Dallas 2012, no pet.). As with other 

error-preservation requirements, “[o]ur procedural [briefing] rules are technical, but 

not trivial.” Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 258 (Tex. 2014) (discussing 

practical importance of preservation requirements). The formal briefing 

requirements in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are intended to ensure, among 

other things, that an appellate court has the information necessary to resolve the 

relevant issues while maintaining its role as a neutral adjudicator. TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.9; see Ihnfeldt v. Reagan, No. 02-14-00220-CV, 2016 WL 7010922, at *9 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Dec. 1, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Thus, to substantially 

comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief must, at a 

minimum, (1) not “flagrantly violat[e]” the formal briefing requirements; and (2) 

present the issues, facts, and legal authorities so as to “acquaint the court with the 

issues in [the] case and ... enable the court to decide the case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9; 

see Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 569–70 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). 

We construe appellate briefs “liberally, but reasonably” so that the right to 

appeal is not unnecessarily lost by waiver, and we will “not dismiss an appeal for a 

procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the rules of appellate 

procedure would preserve the appeal.” Horton, 591 S.W.3d at 569–70; Ryland 

Enter., Inc. v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam) 
 –3– 

(quoting Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997)). Here, however, 

appellant failed to substantially comply with the rules; she flagrantly violated the 

briefing requirements, and her violations prevent us from resolving the merits of the 

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 

42.2(b), (c); Bolling v. Farmer’s Branch I.S.D., 315 S.W.3d 893, 897 (Tex. App—

Dallas 2010, no pet.). 

210818F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ESTHER ATIGOGO, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00818-CV V. 

TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 7, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 007-03182-

2021. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered May 9, 2022