Nevarez v. Investment Retrievers, Inc.

An appellate court has no duty or even right to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. Appellant's issues in the present case were inadequately briefed. Among other things, the court noted: Appellant failed to explain how cases mentioned in the brief support specific contentions in each issue, and appellant did not provide clear and concise arguments for all of the issues. El Paso Court of Appeals, No. 08-09-00083-CV, 07-19-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee. On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in allowing certain business records to be admitted into evidence when they failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Evidence, in accepting a credit card agreement submitted by Appellee as a valid contract, and in entering a judgment in favor of Appellee. We affirm.

After Chase/Bank One and Appellant entered into a credit card member contractual agreement, the company issued a credit card to Appellant, and Appellant made purchases and/or cash advances using the credit card account. In July 2007, Appellee brought an action against Appellant for debts Appellant incurred and owed on the credit card account. In its original petition, Appellee asserted that Chase/Bank One assigned all of its rights, title, and interest in monies owed under Appellant’s credit card to Appellee, and that Appellee was the holder and owner of the disputed credit card account and thus entitled to receive all money due under the credit card agreement’s terms. Appellee claimed Appellant defaulted on the payment obligations under the credit card agreement’s terms and conditions to pay the account, and despite the company’s demand for payment, Appellant refused to pay the debt owed or any part of it. According to Appellee, due to Appellant’s default on the credit card account, Appellant owed a “principal amount of $7,610.43, plus interest accrued and accruing at the highest contractual rate allowed by state law of eighteen percent (18 %) per annum from the date of charge off of 02/28/05.” In Appellant’s answer, Appellant asserted the defenses of improper service and mistaken identity. Appellant also claimed that Appellee lacked standing to bring the instant suit, and that the statute of limitations barred this suit.

Nevarez v. Investment Retrievers, Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to The Recorder