TSP Operations, LLC D/B/A the Standard Pour v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
05-17-00131-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- TSP Operations, LLC d/b/a The Standard Pour (appellant) appealed the trial court’s dismissal of its garnishment suit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (appellee).
- Appellant filed an appellate brief that the court found deficient under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
- The court notified appellant (May 26, 2017) of the brief’s deficiencies and gave ten days to file a corrected brief; appellant did not file one.
- The appellate brief lacked required elements: table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case and facts with record citations, appropriate legal citations in argument, and required appendix materials (judgment, statutes, central documents).
- The court emphasized that it will not perform independent fact-finding or legal research for a party, and that conclusory assertions without authority are inadequate.
- Because appellant failed to cure the briefing defects after notice, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant’s appellate brief complied with Tex. R. App. P. 38 | Appellant failed to provide a corrected brief within the time allowed (no substantive defense of compliance in opinion) | Appellee implicitly relied on the court’s procedural rules and consequences for noncompliance | Court held the brief did not comply with Rule 38 and identified specific missing elements |
| Whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for briefing noncompliance | Appellant did not remedy deficiencies after notice and opportunity to amend | Appellee benefited from dismissal as permitted by the rules | Court held dismissal warranted under Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (briefing rules require argument with record references and authority; court may dismiss for noncompliance)
- Canton–Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (appellate courts are not obligated to identify trial-court error or perform legal research for parties)
- Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (appellate courts need not conduct independent review of the record for a party’s benefit)
- Strange v. Continental Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (reiterating limits on appellate review when briefing is deficient)
- Valadez v. Avita, 238 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (conclusory statements without legal authority do not satisfy briefing requirements)