Charles Mitchell v. Ruth Houston, 05-13-00618-CV

Charles Mitchell (pro se) sued his sister, Ruth Houston, alleging she unlawfully dispossessed him of real and personal property by using an invalid durable power of attorney executed by their mother, Mrs. Albert Mitchell.
Mrs. Mitchell was hospitalized in July 2009, later diagnosed with dementia/Alzheimer’s, and placed in a nursing home; Houston obtained a general power of attorney dated September 30, 2009, to pay bills.
Mitchell had a criminal conviction for aggravated assault (hatchet/knife incident at the family home) and had been incarcerated; Houston testified she prevented him from returning because their mother feared him.
Mitchell sued Houston and Christopher Houston in November 2011; after a bench trial the trial court entered judgment for the defendants.
On appeal Mitchell raised three issues: (1) the power of attorney was invalid (not acknowledged before an officer authorized for deeds of conveyance); (2) deprivation of liberty/property under the Texas Constitution; and (3) abuse of discretion by the trial court regarding Section 482 Probate Code requirements.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Mitchell failed to preserve or adequately brief his appellate complaints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of durable power of attorney	POA invalid because not acknowledged before an officer authorized for deeds of conveyance	POA was executed and used to pay Mrs. Mitchell’s bills; trial court enforced it	Not preserved for appeal; issue waived — resolved against Mitchell (affirmed)
Constitutional deprivation (Tex. Const. §19)	Mitchell was deprived of liberty, property, privileges without constitutional protection	No specific defense needed; appellee argued on record facts and trial court decided for defendants	Inadequately briefed by Mitchell; waived on appeal — resolved against Mitchell
Trial court abuse of discretion re: Section 482 requirement	Trial court abused discretion by enforcing POA despite alleged notarial/acknowledgment defect	Argument not raised at trial; court properly declined relief	Not preserved; cannot raise via abuse-of-discretion claim — resolved against Mitchell

Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2000) (issue preservation rule)
Gonzalez v. VATR Const. LLC, 418 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (appellate briefing standards; need for analysis and record citations)
Dunmore v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 400 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (inadequate briefing waives complaint)
In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)
Howell v. T S Commc’ns, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (briefing adequacy requirement)
Washington v. Bank of New York, 362 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (requirements for presenting issues on appeal)