Keiwuan Mitchell and Coquessa Mitchell v. Mary Louise Newton ( 2016 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00340-CV
KEIWUAN MITCHELL AND APPELLANTS
COQUESSA MITCHELL
V.
MARY LOUISE NEWTON APPELLEE
----------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-004310-1
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellee Mary Louise Newton leased a residence to pro se Appellants
Keiwuan Mitchell and Coquessa Mitchell. In August 2014, Newton sued
Appellants in county court for damages that they had allegedly caused to the
residence. The trial court subsequently conducted a bench trial and signed a
final judgment in favor of Newton, finding that Appellants had damaged her
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
property and awarding her judgment against Appellants in the amount of
$12,000, plus $3,750 for attorney’s fees. The judgment expressly states that the
trial court considered the testimony, the exhibits, and the credibility of the
witnesses. Appellants did not request, nor did the trial court enter, any findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
Appellants’ first issue states that the trial court erred by excluding “critical
evidence,” but the body of the argument, liberally construed, raises a legal
sufficiency complaint—that Newton presented no evidence that Appellants
negligently damaged the residence and that she therefore improperly charged
Appellants for the cost to repair what they contend was otherwise normal wear
and tear on the residence. Similarly, Appellants argue in their second issue that
the evidence is factually insufficient to support the judgment because it would be
“unjust and a travesty” to make them cover the costs that Newton incurred
repairing or remodeling the residence.
Appellants requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record,
but they did not ask that the proceedings from the bench trial, if any, be included
in the record. The reporter’s record contains only the transcript of the brief
hearing on Appellants’ motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.
Appellants bore the burden to bring forward a record that enables this
court to determine whether reversal is required. See Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424
S.W.3d 722, 727 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). Issues depending on the
state of the evidence—like each of Appellants’ issues here—cannot be reviewed
2
without a complete record, including the reporter’s record. See id. Without a
reporter’s record of the bench trial upon which to review Appellants’ evidentiary-
based arguments, we must presume that the evidence supports the trial court’s
judgment. See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (“This court
has held that when an appellant complains of the factual or legal sufficiency of
the evidence, the appellant’s burden to show that the judgment is erroneous
cannot be discharged in the absence of a complete or an agreed statement of
facts.” (footnote omitted)); Petterson v. JGMS Invs. LLC, No. 05-15-01286-CV,
2016 WL 6124134, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 20, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(“Without a record of the bench trial, we must assume the ‘evidence’ admitted at
the trial was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.”); Emesowum v.
Morgan, No. 14-13-00397-CV, 2014 WL 3587385, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] July 22, 2014, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (holding similarly).
Accordingly, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the
trial court’s judgment.2 We overrule Appellants’ two issues and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
2
Insofar as Appellants do contend in their first issue that the trial court
erroneously excluded certain evidence, in the absence of a reporter’s record, we
are unable to review the circumstances surrounding its exclusion, including the
nature of the evidence, the reason for its exclusion, whether Appellants made an
offer of proof, and whether the exclusion, if erroneous, was harmful. See
Fletcher Aviation, Inc. v. Booher, No. 14-04-00712-CV, 2005 WL 1242395, at *2
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 26, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reasoning
similarly).
3
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DELIVERED: December 1, 2016
4