Anambra State Community in Houston v. Anambra State Community, Houston ( 2018 )

Opinion issued March 8, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00033-CV ——————————— ANAMBRA STATE COMMUNITY IN HOUSTON, Appellant V. ANAMBRA STATE COMMUNITY, HOUSTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2010-76740 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final judgment after a bench trial. Appellee Anambra State Community, Houston was awarded $9,150 in actual damages based on findings of fraud and conversion. This appeal has been pursued by the defendant at trial, Anambra State Community in Houston. We affirm. Appellant purports to raise two issues. The first issue questions “Whether Appellee/Plaintiff provided evidence to prove that defendant committed fraud and conversion.” Reading this liberally as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it fails. The judgment identifies fraud and conversion as separate grounds to support the award of $9,150 in actual damages. The evidentiary challenge to the conversion claim is inadequate to preserve an appellate challenge. Without identifying any particular element that is unsupported by evidence, the brief nakedly asserts: “Appellee herein has not presented any evidence that will allow for recovering on its conversion claim.” We hold that appellant has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conversion claim. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Because the conversion claim supports all the relief granted in the judgment, we need not separately address the fraud claim (which features similar briefing deficiencies). TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Appellant’s remaining issue asks: “Whether the membership of [Anambra State Community] ‘IN’ Houston followed its constitution in ousting Christian Ulasi and incorporating the association as indicated in its constitution.” Appellant presents no argument to explain how answering this question leads to any relief from the judgment. Moreover, the brief fails to identify evidence in the trial record sufficient to support its assertion that Ulasi was removed from office. 2 The judgment is AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown. 3