Shawn G. Brown v. HV of Fork Owners Association, Inc. — Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hoyle

NO. 12-26-00079-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
SHAWN G. BROWN,
APPELLANT
V.
HV OF FORK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
APPELLEE
§
§
§
APPEAL FROM THE 402ND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shawn Brown, acting pro se, appeals the trial court’s grant of declaratory judgment and
injunction in favor of HV of Fork Owners Association, Inc. (the Association). 	He presents ten
issues on appeal.1 We affirm.
B ACKGROUND
The Association is the property owner’s association for the Holiday Villages on Lake
Fork. Brown owns property in the Holiday Villages. The Association’s bylaws were amended in
January 2023, changing the procedure for removal of members of the Association’s board of
directors.
In 2025, Brown organized the “Boot the Board Committee” to remove the Association’s
entire board of directors. 	The committee distributed material to the Association’s members
claiming that the bylaws did not contain a removal procedure and that the Texas Business
Organizations Code controlled the process. The committee scheduled a vote of the members to
have the board removed.
1 Brown’s brief claims to identify twelve grounds for appeal; however, it lacks issues seven and nine.

2
The Association filed a petition for declaratory judgment on August 4.2 It later amended
its petition to include a request for injunctive relief. 	On August 6, the committee sent the
Association a notice claiming that the committee removed the entire board via vote. 	The
notification also stated that a special meeting was scheduled for August 23 to finalize removal
and replacement of the board of directors. On August 22, the Association obtained a temporary
restraining order enjoining Brown and the committee from assuming control based on the
previous vote.
Brown filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act,
asserting that the Association’s lawsuit arises from the exercise of his rights to free speech,
petition, and association. According to Brown, the trial court held a hearing on his TCPA motion
at the same time as the bench trial.3 	Following the bench trial, the trial court granted the
Association’s declaratory judgment and request for a permanent injunction. The trial court held
that the Association’s bylaws are valid and controlling for removal of a member of the board and
that the committee did not follow the required procedure, making its vote invalid. The trial court
further enjoined Brown from publishing and disseminating statements with the intent to
contravene the existing bylaws and from attempting to assume control of the Association based
on the committee’s actions or votes without following the bylaws’ procedure.
Following trial, Brown filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, which was denied.
Judge Alfonso Charles, the Presiding Judge for the Tenth Administrative Judicial Region, found
that the motion was “groundless and clearly brought for unnecessary delay and without sufficient
cause,” and ordered Brown pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees as a sanction.
This appeal followed.
I NADEQUATE B RIEFING
Initially, we recognize that Brown is acting pro se on appeal, and we must construe his
brief liberally. 	Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989). 	However, our
rules of appellate procedure have specific requirements for briefing, and the law is well-settled
that a party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable rules. 	See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1;
Harris v. Showcase Chevrolet, 231 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). We may
2 The Association sued other members of the Boot the Board Committee, but they are not parties to this
appeal.
3 Brown elected to proceed with his appeal without a reporter’s record. Therefore, the record is silent as to
the exact contents of the bench trial or hearing.

3
not apply different standards for litigants appearing without advice of counsel. 	Bolling v.
Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); see
also Morris v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2011, no pet.). 	Otherwise, pro se litigants would be afforded an unfair advantage over
those represented by counsel. See Sprowl v. Stiles, No. 05-18-01058-CV, 2019 WL 3543581, at
*4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 4, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). 	Therefore, on appeal, Brown must
properly present his case according to the rules of appellate procedure.
The right to appellate review in Texas extends only to complaints made in accordance
with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to clearly articulate the issues
we will be asked to decide, to make cogent and specific arguments in support of its position, to
cite authorities, and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found.
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895 (rules require appellants to
“state concisely the complaint they may have, provide understandable, succinct and clear
argument for why their complaint has merit in fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is
applicable to the complaint being made along with record references that are appropriate”).
We will not look outside an appellate brief for arguments in support of an issue when
doing so would circumvent the rules of appellate procedure. See Lee, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1.
Nor are we responsible for searching the record for facts or for conducting legal research that
may be favorable to a party’s position. Id.; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. If we did so, we would
be abandoning our proper role as neutral arbiters and become advocates for a party. Bolling, 315
S.W.3d at 895.
Rule 38.1(f) requires Brown’s brief to “state concisely all issues or points presented for
review.” 	T EX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f). 	If Brown does not adequately articulate the issues, his brief
fails. 	Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. Rule 38.1(i) requires Brown’s brief to 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(i). 	If we must speculate or guess about Brown’s contentions, his
brief fails. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896. Moreover, an appellate brief containing “[r]eferences to
legal authority that have nothing to do with the issue to be decided” does not comply with Rule
38.1(i). Id. 	If Brown’s brief does not cite “existing authority that can be applied to the facts of
the case,” his brief fails. Id.

4
The rules of appellate procedure additionally require Brown’s brief to include a statement
of facts that “state[s] concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points
presented.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g). 	The statement of facts must be supported by record
references. Id.
To fulfill these requirements, Brown must “provide us with such discussion of the facts
and the authorities relied upon as may be requisite to maintain the point at issue.” Morrill v.
Cisek, 226 S.W.3d 545, 548 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). “This is not done by
merely uttering brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.” Id. (quoting Tesoro
Petrol. Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2002, pet. denied)). Brown must explain how the law in the cited authorities applies to the
material facts in the record and supports his arguments on appeal. 	Schmitz v. Denton Cty.
Cowboy Church, 550 S.W.3d 342, 363 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. denied). When the
issue on appeal is unsupported by argument or lacks citation to the record or to legal authority,
nothing is presented for review. 	Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d
423, 427 (Tex. 2004).
Brown’s brief fails to comply with Rule 38.1. Although he purports to present ten issues
for our review, Brown’s brief fails to present a clear and concise argument, applicable facts, or
legal authorities for each purported issue. 	To the contrary, Brown’s arguments, which appear
mostly in chart format, are conclusory and hard to follow. 	Brown fails to concisely and
coherently state the facts and the legal issues presented for our review; to provide succinct, clear,
and accurate arguments addressing how his complaints have merit in law and fact; and to cite
applicable legal authority with respect to his specific complaints. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), (i);
Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593 S.W.3d 398, 403 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.). As such, he has
not presented any issues for our review.4
4 Even were we to reach the merits of Brown’s complaints, the lack of a reporter’s record dooms his appeal.
The appellant bears the burden to bring forward on appeal a sufficient record to show the error committed by the
trial court. Huston v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 434 S.W.3d 630, 636 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet.
denied) (citing Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no
pet.)); see also Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (“The burden is on the
appellant to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal.”). In the absence of a reporter’s
record, “[w]e indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court’s findings.” Bryant v. United Shortline Inc.
Assur. Servs., N.A., 972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998); see also Willms v. Am. Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (“[W]hen an appellant fails to bring a reporter’s record, an appellate court must
presume the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court’s order.”). It was Brown’s burden to bring

5
DISPOSITION
Having concluded that Brown’s brief does not comply with the requirements of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure and that Brown therefore failed to present issues for review, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
B RIAN H OYLE
Justice
Opinion delivered October 21, 2026.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Davis, J.
forth a record showing error. Absent the reporter’s record, we cannot properly evaluate Brown’s claims to determine
whether he is entitled to appellate relief and we must presume that the evidence supports the trial court’s order.

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 21, 2026
NO. 12-26-00079-CV
SHAWN G. BROWN,
Appellant
V.
HV OF FORK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Appellee
Appeal from the 402nd District Court
of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2025-386)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged
against the appellant, Shawn Brown, for which execution may issue, and that this decision be
certified to the court below for observance.
Brian Hoyle, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Davis, J.