Opinion
No. 14-04-01087-CV
Memorandum Opinion filed January 17, 2006.
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 803,080.
Affirmed.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices ANDERSON and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a dispute between appellant/cross-appellee Susan M. Alexander and appellee/cross-appellant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., involving unpaid charges on a credit card issued to Alexander. The trial court ordered Alexander to pay Citibank for some but not all of the disputed charges. Both parties appealed. We affirm.
Citibank issued a credit card to Alexander in 2001. All bills were paid properly until 2002, when Alexander's husband stopped paying because he believed the bills were too high.
Citibank then brought suit to recover $26,885.20 in unpaid charges. At trial, Alexander denied making any of the disputed charges. Citibank claimed Alexander permitted her husband and daughter, who has the same first and last name as her mother, to use her card. Alexander's husband, who is an attorney, admitted he sometimes used the card for work-related expenses, and one of the unpaid charges was a payment to the State Bar of Texas. Alexander's daughter attended Southern Methodist University, and two of the disputed charges were for payments to that school.
The trial court concluded that because the charges to the State Bar of Texas and Southern Methodist University were clearly attributable to Alexander and her family, Citibank should recover for those under an unjust enrichment theory, which Citibank had pleaded alternatively. As to the remaining charges, the trial court ruled that Citibank had not met its burden of proving that Alexander made or authorized those charges, and thus it ruled against Citibank as to those charges.
In her appellate brief, Alexander purports to raise two issues on appeal. She asserts that some of Citibank's evidence was hearsay and that the trial court "erred in understanding to render judgment on `debt' or `quantum meruit' unasserted in the trial and unproven." However, Alexander fails to make any coherent arguments and cites no authority other than rules of evidence. Thus, Alexander has waived her two issues because of inadequate briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Burks v. Yarbrough, 157 S.W.3d 876, 881 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005 [mand. denied]).
In its sole issue on appeal, Citibank asserts that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the trial court's award. In reviewing factual sufficiency, we examine the entire record, considering both the evidence in favor of, and contrary to, the challenged findings. See Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). After considering and weighing all the evidence, we set aside a fact finding only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court merely because we might reach a different conclusion. Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex. 1998).
Citibank emphasizes that the trial court "granted only scattered bits and pieces of the amount prayed for [when] . . . Plaintiff presented conclusive evidence of the entire debt." Citibank's evidence consisted of the credit card application, cardholder agreement, account statements, and copies of payments made. However, this evidence is not conclusive. Alexander denied either making or authorizing the charges, and the trial court determined Citibank had not met its burden of proving the contrary. The trial court also concluded that because the charges to the State Bar of Texas and Southern Methodist University directly benefitted Alexander and her family, she should repay Citibank under an unjust enrichment theory, despite the lack of proof that she authorized the charges. This conclusion is reasonable and not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we overrule Citibank's sole issue.
Having overruled all issues presented by the parties on appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment.