Steven Jordan v. Melanie Aaron ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed and Opinion Filed July 31, 2023
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-21-00245-CV
    STEVEN JORDAN, Appellant
    V.
    MELANIE AARON, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-03928
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Breedlove
    Opinion by Justice Molberg
    In this breach of fiduciary duty case involving a disputed real estate
    transaction, appellant Steven Jordan challenges the trial court’s judgment, following
    a bench trial, in favor of appellee Melanie Aaron, the plaintiff in this action, who
    sued Jordan on behalf of herself and as the independent executrix of the Estate of
    Melvin Carl Aaron, deceased.1 Among other things, the judgment canceled a deed
    dated September 6, 2017, from Melvin to Jordan on property located at 3930 Kiest
    Valley, Dallas, County, Texas, and ordered that Aaron recover from Jordan $18,000
    1
    For clarity, we refer to appellee as Aaron and to her father, Melvin Carl Aaron, as Melvin.
    as attorney’s fees through the date of the judgment. The trial court issued findings
    of fact and conclusions of law that included, in part, findings that Jordan used a
    power of attorney to transfer ownership of the subject real property from Melvin to
    himself and that Jordan had a fiduciary duty to Melvin at the time of the transfer.
    On appeal, Jordan, representing himself without an attorney, argues, in essence, that
    the trial court erred in concluding a fiduciary relationship existed and in entering
    judgment in Aaron’s favor based on what Jordan describes as insufficient evidence.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP.
    P. 47.4.
    Jordan raises the following four issues in his appellate brief:
    1. Did [Jordan] use the Power of Attorney to transfer [Melvin’s] house
    to himself. [Aaron] used a copy of the Power of Attorney as Exhibit
    A. And used a copy of the Warranty Deed as Exhibit B. These two
    documents are the only pieces of evidence entered during trial.
    2. Did [Jordan] ever have a fiduciary duty or relationship to ever
    breach.
    3. Did the trial court err with the lack of facts and insufficient legal
    evidence to support the judgment or [Aaron’s] claims.
    4. Does [Jordan] have a right to the property based on agreement he
    had with [Melvin] and contract laws.
    A party appealing an adverse judgment has the burden to show reversible
    error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law
    de novo and its findings of fact for sufficiency of the evidence. Hegar v. Am. Multi-
    Cinema, Inc., 
    605 S.W.3d 35
    , 40 (Tex. 2020). We construe Jordan’s first, third, and
    –2–
    fourth issues as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and his second issue as
    a challenge to the trial court’s conclusions of law.2
    Our record on appeal consists of the clerk’s record only. Because Jordan
    failed to request the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without it,
    after first giving him notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure. See TEX. R. APP.
    P. 37.3(c)(1). “When confronted with an incomplete record, we presume the omitted
    portions are relevant to the appeal and the evidence contained within the omitted
    portions of the record support the trial court’s judgment.” Imagine Auto. Grp. v.
    Boardwalk Motor Cars, Ltd., 
    430 S.W.3d 620
    , 632 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet.
    denied). Without a reporter’s record, it is impossible for Jordan to prevail on his
    sufficiency challenges in his first, third, and fourth issues because we must presume
    the evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Davis v. Kaufman Cty.,
    
    195 S.W.3d 847
    , 851 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Sam Houston Hotel, L.P.
    v. Mockingbird Rest., Inc., 
    191 S.W.3d 720
    , 721 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.]
    2006, no pet.); see also Gonzalez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 05-09-01322-CV,
    
    2011 WL 1549558
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.)
    (stating appellant’s “evidentiary complaints without a reporter’s record present
    2
    We construe Jordan’s fourth issue as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and not a mixed
    question of law and fact, based on Jordan’s pleading—which included only a general denial, and thus did
    not include any affirmative request for an award based on contract—and based on our understanding of
    Jordan’s arguments on appeal. As we understand Jordan’s arguments, he challenges the sufficiency of the
    evidence to support the trial court’s finding of fact I.C., in which the trial court found that Jordan “used the
    [p]ower of [a]ttorney to transfer ownership of the subject real property from [Melvin] to himself.”
    –3–
    nothing for our review”). Absent a reporter’s record, our review is limited to
    complaints concerning errors of law, erroneous pleadings or rulings thereon, an
    erroneous jury charge, irreconcilable jury findings, summary judgment, and
    fundamental error. See Krasniqi v. Dallas Cty. Child Protective Servs., 
    809 S.W.2d 927
    , 933 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied). Jordan raises no issue concerning
    such matters, other than his second issue, which is a question of law.3 We cannot
    conclude the trial court erred in its legal conclusion that Jordan owed Melvin a
    fiduciary duty at the time of the property transfer, as Jordan’s appellate brief states
    Melvin signed a general power of attorney to Jordan on September 6, 2017, the same
    date as the property transfer. See Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. SPEP Aircraft
    Holdings, LLC, 
    572 S.W.3d 213
    , 231 (Tex. 2019) (“An agreement creating a power
    of attorney creates a fiduciary relationship.”).
    Based on the record before us, we conclude Jordan has not demonstrated any
    reversible error in connection with his appeal. We overrule Jordan’s four issues and
    affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /Ken Molberg/
    KEN MOLBERG
    210245f.p05                                        JUSTICE
    3
    See Nat’l Plan Adm’rs, Inc. v. Nat’l Health Ins. Co., 
    235 S.W.3d 695
    , 700 (Tex. 2007); Kiger v.
    Balestri, 
    376 S.W.3d 287
    , 290 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied).
    –4–
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    STEVEN JORDAN, Appellant                       On Appeal from the 160th Judicial
    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-21-00245-CV           V.                Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-03928.
    Opinion delivered by Justice
    MELANIE AARON, Appellee                        Molberg. Justices Reichek and
    Breedlove participating.
    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
    court is AFFIRMED.
    It is ORDERED that appellee MELANIE AARON recover her costs of this
    appeal from appellant STEVEN JORDAN.
    Judgment entered this 31st day of July, 2023.
    –5–