DALE C. BULLOUGH AND THOMAS J. LYKOS, JR., Appellants v. BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO., LLC, LTD., Appellee

AFFIRMED and Opinion issued August 2, 2011
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-04-01006-CV
............................
DALE C. BULLOUGH AND THOMAS J. LYKOS, JR., Appellants
V.
BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO., LLC, LTD., Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 04-00482-C
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Moseley
        This is an appeal of a summary judgment based on breach of a promissory note made by appellant Dale C. Bullough and guaranteed by appellant Thomas J. Lykos, Jr. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
        Despite being notified   See Footnote 1  his initial brief was deficient, Bullough failed to amend his brief. His inadequate brief presents nothing for review. See Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied).
        Lykos does not attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the summary judgment. His first five issues relate to whether, because of Bullough's then-pending bankruptcy, the trial court should have dismissed this case, transferred it to bankruptcy court (through some means not identified), or abstained from proceeding. By failing to file a response to the motion for summary judgment, Lykos failed to present these or any other issues to the trial court, waiving his complaints. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). We overrule Lykos's first five issues.   See Footnote 2 
        In his sixth issue and final issue, Lykos argues he has another case pending against appellee and that he “is entitled to an offset that should have been recognized by the Trial Court, precluding execution on the judgment.” In other words, he disputes the availability of post-judgment remedies to collect the final judgment entered in this case while the other case is pending. This is not an argument that the trial court erred in rendering judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1. We resolve Lykos's sixth issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
 
041006F.P05
 
Footnote 1 By letter dated November 17, 2004, the Court notified Bullough's counsel that Bullough's brief failed to comply with the briefing rules because of numerous deficiencies. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Counsel was instructed to file an amended brief within ten days. Bullough's motion for an extension of time to file an amended brief was granted, and he was given until February 28, 2005 to file an amended brief.
Footnote 2 On May 31, 2005, a “Suggestion of Bankruptcy” was filed informing this Court that Bullough had filed for bankruptcy. The case was abated on that date. In response to a letter of inquiry from the Court, counsel for appellee stated that the bankruptcy court denied Bullough's discharge by judgment dated January 4, 2007. By order of June 17, 2010, the case on appeal was reinstated. By letter of December 9, 2010, the Court set the case for submission without oral argument on January 19, 2011.