Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

In=20 November 1999, the State of Texas filed a consumer protection suit = against=20 appellants=3D = brother,=20 Ali Yazdchi. The pleadings in that lawsuit list numerous = aliases for=20 Ali, including AAbbas=20 Yazdchi,@ = AHabibollah=20 Yazdchi,@ = and=20 AAhmad=20 Yazdchi.@ The=20 trial court entered a temporary restraining order requiring = numerous=20 financial institutions (holding money in the name of or for the = benefit of=20 Ali), including TradeStar Investments, Inc., to freeze funds held = not only=20 under Ali=3Ds name,=20 but also funds under any of Ali=3Ds=20 aliases. TradeStar attempted to comply with this order by = freezing=20 an account that appellants assert belonged to them. The = court also=20 entered a temporary injunction and appointed a temporary receiver = for Ali=20 and any assets standing in either his name or any of his aliases,=20 specifically requiring the relevant financial institutions, = including=20 TradeStar, to turn over any such assets to the custody of the = temporary=20 receiver.^{^[3]} =20 Meanwhile, The Oaks Condominium Association intervened in the = action,=20 asserting a preexisting claim against the funds based on two prior = and=20 unsatisfied judgments against Ali. After Ali and The Oaks=20 Condominium Association signed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual = Release,=20 the receiver paid The Oaks Condominium Association $33,611.43 on=20 Ali=3Ds=20 behalf. Appellants subsequently brought the present action, = alleging=20 that The Oaks Condominium Association and Williams S. Chesney III=20 Atook or=20 stole $33,611.43 that belonged to [appellants=3D]=20 accounts.@ As=20 stated, the trial court granted both The Oaks Condominium=20 Association=3Ds and=20 Williams S. Chesney III=3Ds motions=20 for summary judgment.

Discussion

Appellants=3D = initial=20 brief appears substantially to be a copy of a brief filed in a = separate=20 appeal. In Yazdchi v. TradeStar Invs. Inc., No.=20 14-05-00125-CV, 2006 WL 2729644 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] Sept. 26, 2006, no pet. h.), appellants argued that = the trial=20 court erred in granting summary judgment against their breach of = contract=20 claim, which asserted that TradeStar improperly transferred funds = from=20 appellants=3D = account=20 to the receiver.^{^[4]} =20 They make the same arguments in their initial briefing in the case = now=20 before us. In fact, all of their arguments in their initial = briefing=20 revolve around the allegedly improper transfer of funds by = TradeStar to=20 the receiver. While, as mentioned above, appellants have = alleged=20 conversion, negligence, fraud, and unjust enrichment against The = Oaks=20 Condominium Association, they have made no allegations that The = Oaks=20 Condominium Association improperly transferred funds, breached any = contract, or is responsible for TradeStar=3Ds alleged=20 improper transfer and breach of contract. Consequently, none = of the=20 arguments made in appellants=3D = original=20 brief are relevant to the present appeal. Accordingly, each = and all=20 of the issues raised in appellants=3D = original=20 brief are overruled.

In their=20 reply brief, appellants make several new and potentially relevant=20 arguments. However, appellants do not cite any authority in = support=20 of these arguments. Thus, the arguments are not adequately=20 briefed. See Tex. R.=20 App. P. 38.1 (AThe brief=20 must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions = made, with=20 appropriate citations to authorities and to the = record.@). =20 Appellants also reference their response to the motion for summary = judgment, but such reference is not an appropriate way to make = arguments=20 on appeal. See, e.g., Redmon v. Griffith, 202 S.W.3d = 225, 241=20 (Tex. App.CTyler=20 2006, pet. filed).^{^[5]}