Nga Van Nguyen D/B/A Eurotex Investment Co. v. Robert Kosnoski and Village Green Real Estate Investment, L.C.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 3, 2002
Docket14-00-01335-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Nga Van Nguyen D/B/A Eurotex Investment Co. v. Robert Kosnoski and Village Green Real Estate Investment, L.C. (Nga Van Nguyen D/B/A Eurotex Investment Co. v. Robert Kosnoski and Village Green Real Estate Investment, L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nga Van Nguyen D/B/A Eurotex Investment Co. v. Robert Kosnoski and Village Green Real Estate Investment, L.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 3, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 3, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-00-01335-CV

NGA VAN NGUYEN D/B/A EUROTEX INVESTMENT CO., Appellant

V.

ROBERT KOSNOSKI and

VILLAGE GREEN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, L.C., Appellees

______________________________________

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 96-32884

O P I N I O N


In this appeal from a fraud and conspiracy case, Nga Van Nguyen d/b/a Eurotex Investment Co. (ANguyen@) appeals pro se a judgment in favor of Village Green Real Estate Investment, L.C. (AVillage Green@).[1]  As is typical of pro se briefing, Nguyen has not specifically couched his arguments in terms of Apoints of error@ or Aissues for review.@  Nevertheless, a liberal reading of Nguyen=s brief suggests that he appeals on the grounds that: (1) the trial court erred in finding that there was no common law fraud, fraud relating to real estate transactions, or conspiracy to commit fraud; (2) he was denied a fair trial due to the jury=s limited knowledge of condominiums, homeowner associations, assessments, real estate transactions, and foreclosures; and (3) the jury=s failure to find in his favor on questions one and six of the jury charge was against the evidence.[2]  Village Green did not file a brief.  Because Nguyen failed to provide appropriate citations to authorities and to the record, he waived his complaints, and we affirm.

Background

Nguyen owned forty-two condominium units which were managed by North Village Green I Condominium Association (the AAssociation@). Subsequently, the Association initiated foreclosure proceedings on Nguyen=s condominium units because he was delinquent in paying his maintenance fees.  Although Nguyen=s brief does not explain well what chain of events followed the foreclosure of the condominium units, it appears that the Association purchased them at a foreclosure sale in June, Kosnoski and Village Green purchased them in another foreclosure sale in July, and then an individual purchased them.


Nguyen filed suit contending that Village Green was liable for (1) common law fraud for misrepresenting Village Green=s right to conduct the foreclosure sale based on Nguyen=s failure to pay the Association=s assessment of maintenance fees; (2) fraud in a real estate transaction for Village Green=s misrepresentation that the earnest money contract presented to Nguyen for his signature was the same as the one previously given to Nguyen,[3] and that Nguyen would not have purchased the condominium units if Village Green had disclosed the maintenance fees owed by Village Green on the condominium units before Nguyen bought them;[4] and (3) conspiring with the Association to commit common law fraud because the individual who ultimately bought the condominium units did not pay Nguyen.  A jury found in questions one and six, respectively, that: Village Green had not committed fraud against Nguyen and Village Green had not committed fraud against Nguyen to induce him into a real estate transaction.

Waiver

Nguyen contends that the trial court erred in finding that there was no common law fraud, fraud relating to real estate transactions, or conspiracy to commit fraud.  Nguyen also contends that he was denied a fair trial due to the jury=s limited knowledge of condominiums, homeowner associations, assessments, real estate transactions, and foreclosures.  Finally, Nguyen argues that the jury=s failure to find in his favor in questions one and six of the jury charge was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 


Under Rule 38.1(h) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant=s brief must contain a clear, concise argument for the contentions made, including appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).  Nguyen, however, failed to support any of his arguments with legal authority or with references to the record.  An issue not supported by authority is waived.  Federal Sign v. Texas S. Univ

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Melendez v. Exxon Corp.
998 S.W.2d 266 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
In Re DS
76 S.W.3d 512 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University
951 S.W.2d 401 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nga Van Nguyen D/B/A Eurotex Investment Co. v. Robert Kosnoski and Village Green Real Estate Investment, L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nga-van-nguyen-dba-eurotex-investment-co-v-robert--texapp-2002.