NO. 07-04-0116-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A OCTOBER 28, 2004

______________________________ HEATHER LYN N COLSON, C HARLES M. C OLSON AND SANDR

A COLSON, APPE LLANTS V. PNB TRUST & ASSET M ANAGEMENT N/ K/A PLAINSCAPITAL WEALTH MANAGEMEN T & TRUST CO., APPE LLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 9 9TH DIST RICT COURT OF LUBBOC K COUNTY; NO. 2003,523,185; H ONORABLE AND REW KUPPER, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Charles M. Colson, appea ring pro se , app eals from the final judg ment in an interpleader

action regarding disposition of funds from a bank account hel d by appelle e PNB Trust an d Asset Ma nageme nt n/k/a Plainsca ptial W ealth Ma nage ment & Trust Co.1 Reference to a rule of appel late procedureher eaf ter wi ll be by r eference to “TRAP_.”
-2- Aft er fil ing his appe llant’s br ief, Colson was directed by the court to r

e-brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9 and 38. 1 He filed a second brief on Se ptember 9, 2004. His sec ond bri ef, like his first, does not c ite any author ities. “R ecord references ” in b oth briefs are references to docu ments not app earing i n the clerk’s record and to documents in a separate case. No documents from the separate case appear in the appe llate recor d. The brief c ontai ns recitati ons of alleged facts and occurrences about whi ch Colson makes complaint, but he includes no substant ive discussion of how the trial court erred legal ly, nor of how the all eged facts and occurrenc es probably caused entry

of an improper

judgment, or prevented him from presenti ng his cas e on appeal. See TRAP 44.1. T exas courts do not maintain separat e sets of procedur al rules for l itigantswit h counsel and for litig ants representing themselves. See Mansfield State B ank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). Litigants representing themselves must comply w ith the same procedural rules as are app licable to r epresented parti es. Id .; Clemens v. Allen , 47 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.–Amarill o 2000, no pet.)

. Appellate courts accep t substantial compliance w ith briefing rules. See TRAP 38.9. In the event a brief does not co m ply with TRAP 38, an appellate court may require amendment, supplementation or redrawi ng of the brief. Ap propriate act ion by the a ppellate court may be ta ken in regar d to an appellant’ s failure to take correcti ve action as to appellan t ’s brief as dire cted by the court when t he brief remains in noncompliance with2 We note in passi ng that if the ar gument in an appel late b rie f c ontains no citation to authority or substantiv e discussion of how the trial court erred, the issues urged are deemed to have been w aived. See Knie v. Pi skun , 23 S.W.3d 455, 460 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2000, pet. denied) ; Lewis v . Deaf Smith Elec. Coop., Inc ., 768 S.W.2d 511, 512- 13 ( Tex .App .–Am ari llo 1989 , no w rit .). Appe lla nt’s bri ef p resen ts nothing for review , even if we did not dismi ss the appeal for w ant of prosecution. -3- TRAP 38. Suc h act ion may inc ludepro ceed ing as i f the offend ing par ty f ail ed tofilea br ief, see TRAP 38.9(a), and dismissin g the appeal for want of prosec uti on. Clemens , 47 S.W.3d at 28

. Colson’s brief does not substantially comply with the appellate briefing rules. We dismiss the app eal for want of prosecution. 2

Phil Johnson Chief Justice