1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 7 - 3 2 6 - CV T ONI S OL ANO AP P E L L ANT V . C EN D A N T M O RTG A G E A PPELL EES COR P OR AT I ON, T HE B R OW N L A W F IR M , S T E V E N B R O W N , I NDI VI DUA L L Y, VA NE S S A M C C A F F R E Y , J E R R YC . B ODI F OR D D / B /A AL P HA D E V E L O P M E N TC O M P A N Y , AND J E S S E R AYM I L E S D/ B /A AL P HA DE VE L OP M E NTCO M P ANY

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 348TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NTCO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- The t r i alco urtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm entf orA ppe l l ee s C end ant M ort gag e Cor por at i on; th e Br ow n L aw Fi r m ; St eve n Br ow n, I ndi vi dua l l y;2 ... See T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (i) (s t a t i n g t h a tt h eb r ie fm u s tc o n t a in

a rg u m e n t w i th a p p ro p ri a te c i ta ti o n sto a u th o ri ti e s ). 2 V ane ss a M cCaf f r ey; Jer ry C . Bodi f or d d/ b/ a A l pha D eve l opm entCom pan y; an d Jes seR ayM i l esd/ b/a Al pha D eve l opm entCom pan y. Appel l antToniSol ano fi l e d th i sa p p e a l . A ppe l l ant f i l ed her or i gi nal br i ef on A ugus t 5, 200 8. Thi s courts ent A ppel l anta l ett erst at i ng t hather b ri e f di d not com pl y w i t h t he br i ef i ng r ul es con t ai ned i n t he r ul esofap pel l at e p r oce dur e. Am ong o t herde f i ci enc i es , t he b ri e f did n o t co n tai n a c l e a r an d co n c i se arg u m e n t w i th a p p rop ri a te c i tati o n s to l ega l au t hor i t i esan d t o t he r ec or d. 2Thi s courtadvi sed A ppel l antt o f i l e an am ended br i eft hatcom pl i ed w i t h t he br i ef i ng ru l es and i nf or m ed hert hat “[ f ] ai l ur e t o do s o m ay r es ul ti n s t r i ki ng t he br i efyou f i l ed, w ai verof n o n c o m p l y i n g p o i n ts , o r d i s m i s s a l o f th ea p p e a l .” A ppel l antsubsequentl y r equest e d t w o ext ensi ons oft i m e t o f i l e an am ended br i ef , w hi ch t hi s c o u rtg r ant ed. W e deni ed hert hi r d m ot i on f oran e x ten sion o f t i m e an d o rd e red tha t t h eap p e a l w o u l d b esu b m i tted w i th A p p e l l a n t’ s o ri g i n a l b ri e f. W e r ea l i z e t hatA ppe l l antpr epa r ed herbr i ef s w i t houtthe as si st anc e o f coun sel , butpr o se l i t i gan ts ar e hel d t o t he sam e st andar ds as l i censed3 ... W heeler v. Green , 1 5 7 S .W .3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 4(T e x . 2 0 0 5 ) (sta ti n g th a t p ro se l i t i gants“ar e n otex em ptfr om the r ul es of pr ocedu r e” and suggest i ng t hat “ [h ]a v i n g tw o s e tso f ru l e s — a s tri c t s e t fo r a tto rn e y sa n d a l e n i e n t s e t fo r p ro sep art i es — m i ghten cou r agel i t i gan t s t o di sc ar d t hei rva l uab l e r i ghtt o t he a d v i c e a n d a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l ” ); Mans f i eld State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S. W . 2d 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 ( T e x . 1 9 7 8 ) (“L i ti g a n ts w h o rep res e n t t h e m se l v e s m u st c o m p l yw i th t he app l i ca bl e p r oce dur alr ul es , orel set heyw oul d begi ven an unf ai rad van t age o v e r l i ti g a n tsre p re s e n te d b yc o u n s e l .” ).

4 ... See T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (i ); Gray v. Nash , 259 S. W . 3d 286, 294 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 8, pet . deni ed) ( deci di ng t hati ssues w er e w ai ved b e c a u s e o f i n a d e q u a te b ri e fi n g ). 3 att or neys w i t h respectt o f ol l ow i ng t he appl i cabl e r ul es ofpr ocedu r e. 3 A cc or di ngl y, w e o ver r ul e al l ofA ppe l l ant ’ s i ss uesasi nad equ at el y br i ef ed. 4 W e a l so d e n yA p p e l l a n t’ s p e n d i n g m o ti o n for rel i e f. H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d A p p e l l a n t’ s i ss u e s, w eaffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, LI V I N G STO N , an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J ul y 16, 2009