Hong Sheng Zhu v. Xin Wei Zhang, 01-21-00699-CV

Xin Wei Zhang filed for divorce; Hong Sheng Zhu filed a counterpetition seeking a disproportionate share of the community estate.
The parties mediated without settlement and proceeded to a bench trial; the trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce dividing the community estate and establishing child‑support obligations.
Zhu moved for new trial asserting lack of a Mandarin interpreter, trial counsel unprepared/attempting to withdraw, error in property division and child‑support calculations, and newly discovered evidence; the trial court denied the motion.
Zhu filed a pro se appellate brief that generally alleged the trial was unfair and asked for a 50/50 split but failed to identify specific rulings, cite the record, or cite legal authority.
The appellate court held Zhu’s brief failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, concluded his issues were waived for inadequate briefing, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing community property	Zhu: division was unfair; sought 50% share	Zhang: judgment stands; no reversible error shown in record	Waived for inadequate briefing; affirmed
Whether Zhu was denied a fair trial for lack of a Mandarin interpreter / counsel problems	Zhu: no interpreter; counsel tried to quit; trial unfair	Zhang: assertions unsupported in appellate brief/record	Waived for inadequate briefing; no review
Whether newly discovered evidence (Zhu’s unemployment) should have been admitted	Zhu: evidence warranted different outcome	Zhang: evidence/procedural basis not preserved	Waived; appellate court did not consider
Whether documents attached to Zhu’s brief should be considered on appeal	Zhu: relied on four attached documents	Zhang: extra‑record documents not part of appellate record	Court refused to consider extrinsic documents; issues waived

Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Insurance Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (inadequate briefing waives appellate issues)
Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) (pro se litigants not exempt from procedural rules)
Canton‑Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (pro se parties must comply with rules; courts should not act as their advocates)
Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (courts should not create lenient rules for pro se litigants)
Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (Rule 38 briefing requirements not satisfied by conclusory statements)
Quorum International v. Tarrant Appraisal District, 114 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (appellate review is limited to the record)
Robb v. Horizon Communities Improvement Association, Inc., 417 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (documents not in the record generally cannot be considered on appeal)
Abdelnour v. Mid National Holdings, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (failure to cite authority or the record results in waiver)
Wallace v. Wallace, 623 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981) (standard of review for marital property division is abuse of discretion)