The opinion
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