law-appeal-failure-to-brief-issue-waiver | common errors in appellate advocacy |


We decline to make Brown's argument for him.  See Robertson v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 190 S.W.3d
899, 903 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) (declining to address issue where party failed to discuss any of the
factors deemed relevant to resolution of the issue); Rudisill v. Arnold White & Durkee, P.C., 148 S.W.3d 556,
562 n.8 & n.10 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (pointing out that appellants emphasized certain
facts but failed to offer any explanation or authority as to how those facts related to the grant of summary
judgment against them); Wilson & Wilson Tax Servs., Inc. v. Mohammed, 131 S.W.3d 231, 242 (Tex. App.-
Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (“[W]e will not speculate as to the arguments that could have been
brought, or attempt to make those arguments for them.").
Brown v. Green (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Sep. 1, 2009)(Hedges)
legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty) (SJ for defendant affirmed)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by
Chief Justice Hedges    
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brock Yates and Frost  
14-08-00592-CV Willard E. Brown III v. George Maynard Green and Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.  
Appeal from 74th District Court of McLennan County (name of judge not shown on docket)

During oral argument, Robertson contended for the first time that a listing agreement between Odom and
Coldwell Banker proved an agency relationship sufficient to impute liability to Odom.  Even were we to
construe this new argument as a claim that the agency issue was conclusively established under Rule 279,
this contention was not included in Robertson's original or post-submission brief.  Therefore, it is waived.  See
Frias v. Atl. Richfield Co., 999 S.W.2d 97, 106 n.8 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1999,  pet. denied); In re C.
A.K., 155 S.W.3d 554, 562 n.5 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2004, pet. denied) ("[A] new issue may not be
presented for the first time at oral argument."); Tex. R. App. P. 39.2 ("Oral argument should emphasize and
clarify the written arguments in the briefs.") (emphasis added).
Robertson v. Barnes (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 30, 2009)(Sullivan)
(home owner,
consumer law, DTPA, home in poor condition, stucco problem, seller was not required to
disclose prior water damage because repair was not "structural" which the court construes as referring to load-
AFFIRMED: Opinion by
Justice Sullivan  
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan  
14-07-00791-CV  Chris Robertson v. Joe Barnes and Sandion, Ltd d/b/a Coldwell Banker United, Realtors   
Appeal from 280th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court