TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(b), 510.11; A.V.A. Servs. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997, no writ) (citing former TEX. R. CIV. P. 752, now TEX. R. CIV.

Applying this statutory limitation on appellate jurisdiction, courts of appeals have found they lack authority to review determinations of the right of possession and findings essential to the issue of possession, but have reviewed trial court rulings on issues other than possession. See Volume Millwork, Inc. v. West Houston Airport Corp., 218 S.W.3d 722, 727 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (finding no jurisdiction to review issues of landlord's capacity to evict or award of possession to landlord, but reviewing sufficiency of evidence supporting damages and attorney's fees); Carlson's Hill Country Beverage, L.C. v. Westinghouse Road Joint Venture, 957 S.W.2d 951, 952-53 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) (finding § 24.007 precluded review of issue of possession but reviewing challenges to damages and attorney's fees awarded); A.V.A. Services, Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) (finding no jurisdiction over points relating to judgment awarding possession, but reviewing monetary judgment). Here, the county court awarded no relief other than possession of the property.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 90; see also A.V.A. Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) ("[A] claim that the judgment is not supported by the pleadings may not be raised for the first time on appeal."). Because the trial court took judicial notice of the 1992 Texas order, there is some evidence supporting the court's finding on the amount of previously unconfirmed child support arrearages.

We have previously held an appellant may not complain that the judgment does not conform to the pleadings if raised for the first time on appeal. See A.V.A. Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no pet.). This is especially the case when only a partial reporter's record is filed by the appellant because the reviewing court cannot determine if the appellant secured a ruling on the issue at trial.

As a surety, Saunders was liable for up to the amount specified in the appeal bond. See A.V.A. Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) (under rule of civil procedure 752, concerning forcible entry and detainer proceedings, court may award damages up to full amount of appeal bond to cover damages and costs). Saunders's Defenses

Additionally, appellants have failed to provide a copy of the justice court's order setting the amount of the appeal bond and the trial court's order regarding appellants' motion to clarify / modify appellants' rent and bond obligations. On the limited record before us, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the release of the funds deposited by ODFI. See A.V.A. Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) (explaining that when "there is no statement of facts, no error is shown where the full amount of the bond is forfeited even though the judgment otherwise awards no damages, since it is presumed that the trial court was awarding such damages by means of the bond forfeiture").

The prohibition against considering the issue of possession of commercial property "includes consideration of any finding 'essential to the issue of,' 'dependent on,' or 'primarily concerned with the issue of' possession." Hong Kong, 229 S.W.3d at 431-32 (internal citations omitted); see, e.g., Carlson's Hill Country Beverage, 957 S.W.2d at 953 (holding that breach of lease is "merely an element of possession and may not be appealed"); A.V.A. Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus., 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997, no writ) (no jurisdiction to review finding of landlord-tenant relationship because it was issue of possession); W. Anderson Plaza v. Feyznia, 876 S.W.2d 528, 536 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, no writ) (stating that "finding on a threshold issue such as the adequacy of notice before termination cannot be appealed if such a finding is merely an element of the issue of possession"). All parties agree that the lease at issue in this forcible-detainer suit is a commercial lease.

"That a motion for new trial is required for appellate review" of a judgment granting unrequested relief "is something that competent trial counsel in Texas should know. And filing such a motion is not a difficult task." Seeid. at 549 ; see alsoA.V.A. Servs., Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp. , 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1997, no writ). Presuming counsel read the final written order and decided not to file a post-judgment motion for strategic reasons or based on a professional opinion, we must determine whether counsel’s decision was objectively unreasonable. SeeM.S. , 115 S.W.3d at 549.

Here, Issues One, Two, and Six, all relate to the issue of possession; thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See A.V.A. Servs. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) (dismissing two points of error involving possession and deciding the merits of other points); Academy Corp. v. Sunwest N.O.P., Inc., 853 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (stating that existence of landlord-tenant relationship is element of possession issue and therefore not reviewable). In Issue Three, Stevenson contends that the justice court's judgment is without merit and invalid.

See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; See generally Roark v. Stallworth Oil Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tex. 1991) ("The party who allows an issue to be tried by consent and who fails to raise the lack of a pleading before submission of the case cannot later raise the pleading deficiency for the first time on appeal."); see also A.V.A. Serv's, Inc. v. Parts Indus. Corp., 949 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) ("[A] claim that the judgment is not supported by the pleadings may not be raised for the first time on appeal."). Here, it is undisputed that at the time Kimen filed for divorce in August 2007 Paul was still working for Blackwater.