|Send this document to a colleague||Close This Window|
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
JAMES BUGGELLI, Appellant
Harris County, Texas
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
In this suit for damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, appellant seeks reversal of the judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement. Because appellant has waived error, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant James Buggelli sued appellees Alan J. Feltis and Roy J. Crosby d/b/a Royal Aero for claims arising from Royal Aero=s inspection, repair, and assertion of a lien on Buggelli=s airplane. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on October 14, 2003 in which they agreed that the airplane would be sold to satisfy the costs of repair and any excess sales proceeds would be divided between Buggelli and Royal Aero. They further agreed that A[i]f the airplane has not been sold on or before June 15, 2004, this settlement is void. However, the parties may mutually agree to extend this settlement agreement one or more times. Any extensions are to be in writing.@
On December 6, 2005, the trial court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the case on the grounds that A[c]ourt records indicate that there has been a settlement, verdict, or decision dispositive of the case . . . , but a final order has not been filed.@ Although Buggelli did not timely respond, and the case was initially dismissed, Buggelli=s motion for new trial was granted and the case was reinstated.
Royal Aero filed a motion for entry of judgment and set the matter for oral hearing on October 13, 2006. Although there is no reporter=s record in this case, the trial court stated in its Final Judgment that the cause was heard on that date, at which time attorneys for both parties announced that they had reached a settlement agreement. The terms of the agreement, which differ slightly from the 2003 written agreement, are recited in the judgment. According to the terms recited in the judgment, the parties agreed that A[i]n the event the aircraft has not been sold by April 14, 2007, the Court shall entertain a request for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the aircraft and dispose of same in accordance with the terms of this order.@
After Buggelli unsuccessfully moved for a new trial, this appeal ensued.
II. Issues Presented
Buggelli contends the trial court erred by (a) finding that the settlement agreement was valid and rendering judgment in accordance with its terms, and (b) failing to vacate the court=s final judgment and grant a new trial.
In support of the issues presented on appeal, Buggelli argues only that the evidence is legally insufficient because the judgment rests solely on an incompetent affidavit. The affidavit is not described, and the basis for Buggelli=s contention that the affidavit is incompetent is not stated. His brief contains no citations to the clerk=s record, and there is no reporter=s record in this case. Moreover, he cites no authorities and provides no analysis in support of his contention that the affidavit is incompetent.
An appellant=s brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Failure to adequately brief an issue, either by neglecting to specifically argue and analyze one=s position or provide authorities and record citations constitutes waiver of any error on appeal. City of Houston v. Clark, 252 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Although we apply briefing rules liberally, this appeal presents no evidence or authority for review. Because Buggelli fails to identify the affidavit at issue, explain his contentions, or support his arguments with legal authority in his brief, the issues presented are waived. See id. (holding that appellant waived issue by failing to present supporting arguments, analysis, and authority).
Having determined that Buggelli=s issues are waived, we affirm the trial court=s judgment.
/s/ Eva M. Guzman
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008.
Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Guzman.
 Although the order of dismissal is not in the record, the clerk=s record demonstrates that the case was reinstated.