Opinion ID: 1809263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the Water Line Public or Private?

Text: The other issue on appeal, whether the water line adjoining Sun Ridge Valley Road and Blue Ridge Drive is public or private, is mentioned only in passing in the parties' briefs. Harper states: [C]learly, a question of fact has been presented by [Harper] through his response to [the Coatses'] Request for Admission, wherein [Harper] aver[s] that [he is] the owner[ ] of said water line[ ]. Harper's brief, at 7. Harper provides no legal authority or argument for the proposition that the water line belonged to him despite his admission that the Monroeville Water Board uses the water line to service the subdivision. It is not the duty of this Court to make arguments or perform the legal research to supplement an inadequate brief. Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994) (We have unequivocally stated that it is not the function of this Court to do a party's legal research or to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.). The issue whether the water line is Harper's private property is therefore not properly before this Court. Pardue v. Potter, 632 So.2d 470, 473 (Ala.1994) (Issues not argued in the appellant's brief are waived.).