ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

THELMON ODELL THOMAS

APPELLANT

V.

DOMICILE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

APPELLEE

CA00-749

April 25, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CV 99-8637]

HONORABLE JOHN C. WARD,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellee, Domicile Property Management, Inc., filed in September 1999 a complaint against appellant, Thelmon Odell Thomas, pleading that it was entitled to possession of an apartment unlawfully detained by appellant in the Fowler Square Apartments. Appellant counterclaimed that he was entitled to damages against appellee because of problems resulting from a burst water pipe that left him without heat and caused damage to the carpeting, which was not replaced for one and one-half months, the floor, and the ceiling. Appellant further alleged entitlement to damages because of a subsequent leak in the ceiling that was defectively repaired, a leaking hot water tank and toilet, and a water bug infestation. A hearing was held on appellee's complaint, and appellee was awarded an order for possession.

At a subsequent hearing held on appellant's counterclaim, he argued that "the HUDrules and regulations applied," and claimed entitlement to damages based on discrimination against him because of a disability. Evidence was presented regarding a water-pipe break that resulted in flooding to some apartments, including appellant's. There was testimony by appellee's witnesses that the water was immediately removed, the carpet was pulled up and dried with blowers, and the carpet padding was taken out. A witness for appellee also testified that appellant turned off the blowers, which resulted in damages that necessitated replacement of the carpet. According to various witnesses, the carpet was replaced either one week later or several weeks later. There was also testimony that the heat remained on, that there was no bug infestation, that a ceiling leak was repaired, and that appellant's toilet was repaired.

The court entered an order awarding appellee attorney's fees and denying appellant's counterclaim. On the counterclaim, the trial court stated that it found "no discriminatory housing practices" by appellee against appellant.

On appeal, appellant argues that appellee did not provide appellant with a habitable dwelling and as a result violated "the United States Fair Housing Act." Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in not considering the counterclaim and awarding damages. Our standard of review of a circuit court's finding following a bench trial is whether that finding was clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Burke v. Elmore, 341 Ark. 129, 132, 14 S.W.3d 872, 874 (2000). We recognize that the trial court found that there were "no discriminatory housing practices." Appellant, however, failed to develop the legal issues he raises on

appeal by presenting to this court convincing argument or authority. Appellant does not citeany statute on which his claim is based or refer to any relevant case law. While appellant cites to various regulations, he does not explain how these regulations provide the basis for his claim. Because appellant failed to present convincing argument or authority, we affirm. See, e.g., In re Adoption D.J.L., 341 Ark. 327, 328, 16 S.W.3d 263, 265 (2000).

Affirmed.

Neal and Baker, JJ., agree.