AFFIRM; Opinion Filed February 13, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00607-CV

CHAO-TSU LEE, ET AL., Appellants

V.

FANNIE MAE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07466-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Bridges and Evans

Opinion by Justice Evans

Chao-Tsu Lee, Tsai-Hsien Lee, and all occupants appeal from a judgment which granted 

possession of certain real property to Fannie Mae. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Appellants granted New American Financial, Inc., a security interest in their residence 

located at 3614 Colbath Avenue, Garland, Texas (“Property”). The Property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to Matrix Financial Services Corp., and subsequently conveyed to 

Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae sued seeking possession. After the trial court granted Fannie Mae its 

requested judgment for possession, appellants filed this appeal.
–2–

ANALYSIS

We start with the admonition that an appellant’s brief must contain a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made and citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(i). Rule 38 requires a party to provide us with such discussion of the facts and authorities 

relied upon as may be necessary to present the issue. Gonzalez v. VATR Const. LLC, No. 05-12-

00277-CV, 2013 WL 6504813, at *3 (Tex.App.—Dallas Dec. 12, 2013, no pet.). Inadequate 

briefing results in waiver of the complaint. Dunmore v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 400 S.W.3d 635, 

644 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). 

In this instance, although appellants’ brief explains why they fell in arrears on their 

mortgage payments, their brief lacks a clear and concise argument as well as appropriate

citations to authorities and the record. Appellants also failed to file a reporter’s record in this 

case. This Court, by letter dated July 16, 2013, notified appellants that their pro se brief did not 

comply with the rules of appellate procedure and advised them that failure to file an amended 

brief that complied with rule 38.1 could result in dismissal of the appeal. On July 25, 2013,

appellants filed an amended brief which similarly failed to comply with the rules of appellate 

procedure. Appellants also filed additional briefing on October 25, 2013, and November 6, 

2013, and neither of these briefs complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. 

Although we construe pro se pleadings and briefs liberally, we hold pro se litigants to the 

same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with the applicable laws and 

rules of procedure. In re N.E.B, 251 S.W.3d 211, 211-12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); see 

also Gonzalez, 2013 WL 6504813, at *4 (“Appellate courts must construe briefing requirements 

reasonably and liberally, but a party asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific 

argument and analysis showing that the record and the law support his contention.”). To do 

otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by 
–3–

counsel. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. Accordingly, for all the reasons described above, 

appellants have waived their complaint that the trial court erred in awarding Fannie Mae 

possession of the Property. Id. (“When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, he waives 

the issue on appeal.”); Gonzalez, 2013 WL 6504813, at *3 (“The failure to provide appropriate 

record citations or a substantive analysis waives an appellate issue.”).

CONCLUSION

We resolve appellants’ sole issue against them and affirm the trial court’s order. 

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE

130607F.P05
–4–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHAO-TSU LEE, ET AL., Appellants

No. 05-13-00607-CV V.

FANNIE MAE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07466-A.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices Moseley and Bridges participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee FANNIE MAE recover its costs of this appeal and the full 

amount of the trial court’s judgment from appellants CHAO-TSU LEE, ET AL., and from the 

cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond posted with the Dallas County Clerk. After the full 

amount of the trial court’s judgment and appellee’s costs have been paid, the Dallas County 

Clerk is directed to release the balance, if any, of the cash deposit to appellants.

Judgment entered this 13th day of February, 2014.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE