Tommy Wright, Sr. d/b/a Affordable/Hi-Tech Enterprises, LLC v. Joseph Brisco, Kevin Winters and Warren County Missionary Baptist Association

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2025-CP-00258-COA

TOMMY WRIGHT, SR. D/B/A APPELLANT
AFFORDABLE/HI-TECH ENTERPRISES, LLC

v.

JOSEPH BRISCO, KEVIN WINTERS AND APPELLEES
WARREN COUNTY MISSIONARY BAPTIST
ASSOCIATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/28/2025
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DEBRA MICHELLE GILES
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TOMMY WRIGHT SR. (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: KIMBERLY WALKER NAILOR
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/27/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ.

LASSITTER ST. PÉ, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Tommy Wright agreed in a written contract to sell seven parcels of real property to

the Warren County Missionary Baptist Association (“the Association”) for $20,000. Wright

also agreed to remove a house from the property at 1416 Martin Luther King Boulevard in

Vicksburg and to grade the lot after removal.

¶2. At some point, the relationship between Wright and the Association broke down, and

Wright filed a complaint against the Association in the Warren County Chancery Court. The

Association counterclaimed against Wright, and the matter proceeded to a trial. Neither

pleading was included in the record on appeal. Following the trial, the chancellor denied
Wright’s “petition for rescission” and ordered Wright to convey title to seven parcels of

property to the Association, to clear and grade the lot on one of the parcels, and to pay

attorney’s fees to the Association.

¶3. Wright timely appealed and presents three issues for our review, which we quote here:

(1) Did the trial court err in enforcing the contract due to procedural and
substantive errors, including the conduct of an over-aggressive lawyer and a
biased judge?

(2) Was the trial court’s finding that Wright’s trailer reduced the Association’s
parking lot from twenty cars to two cars incorrect?

(3) Did the trial court improperly consider Wright’s medical condition, which
was raised to ensure proceedings were not delayed or misinterpreted?

¶4. Wright’s brief contains no citations to the record or caselaw beyond mentioning two

case names without citation to the Southern Reporter or explanation of their holdings or

application to his appeal.1 The Association did not file an appellee’s brief.

¶5. Rule 28 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure requires appellants to state

“the reasons for th[eir] contentions” and provide “citations to the authorities, statutes, and

parts of the record relied on” to support their arguments to the Court. M.R.A.P. 28(a)(7). Our

appellate courts have “consistently held that failure to cite any authority is a procedural bar,

and a reviewing court is under no obligation to consider the assignment” of error. Jones v.

Miss. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 129 So. 3d 224, 225 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). This rule applies

equally to pro se litigants, who “should be held to the same rules of procedure and

1
Wright states: “Relevant Mississippi case law supports the arguments for reversal.
In Norman v. Anderson Reg’l Med. Ctr., the court emphasized the importance of procedural
fairness and the proper consideration of evidence. Additionally, the presumption of mental
capacity and the burden of proof in such cases are well-established in Parks v. Parks.”

2
substantive law as represented parties.” Id. at (¶8).

¶6. “A trial court’s judgment is presumptively correct[,] and the appellant must

demonstrate error to this Court.” Jones v. Jones, 307 So. 3d 1229, 1231 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App.

2020). Wright wholly failed to demonstrate error to this Court by failing to provide citation

to relevant authorities or the parts of the record containing error.

¶7. Accordingly, the judgment of the chancery court is AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND WEDDLE, JJ.,
CONCUR.

3