Opinion
NO. 03-16-00810-CV
01-11-2018
Thienan Bui, Appellant v. Beck and Company Real Estate Services, Inc., et al., Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-13-001879 , HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thienan Bui, acting pro se, sued five parties claiming various injuries stemming from water damage in his condominium unit. A jury returned a verdict against Bui and he now appeals, complaining that the trial court committed reversible error in its disposition of three pretrial matters. For the reasons explained below, we will affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
Because the background of this case is well known to the parties, we recite only the facts and procedural background that are necessary to the resolution of this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (directing appellate courts to issue opinions that are as "brief as practicable" but address issues necessary to final disposition); id. R. 47.4 (explaining that memorandum opinions should be "no longer than necessary to advise the parties of the court's decision and the basic reasons for it"); Spicewood Springs Rd. Tunnel Coal. v. Leffingwell, No. 03-11-00260, 2013 WL 2631750 (Tex. App.—Austin June 6, 2013, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.).
In 2013, Bui sued five parties asserting various causes of action arising from water-damage repairs to his condominium unit. On the property-management side, Bui sued Beck and Company Real Estate Services, Inc.; Seton Avenue Condominiums Council of Co-Owners, Inc.; and the individual property manager, Lisa Spearman (collectively, "the HOA"). On the construction side, Bui sued C&D Construction, LLC, and Jason Wofford, individually, and d/b/a JW Construction (collectively, "the Contractors").
By the time the case went to trial on July 11, 2016, only one defendant remained—C&D Construction. A jury returned a verdict against Bui, and he now appeals. In his request for relief, Bui asks us to reverse an order enforcing a Rule 11 agreement that dismissed the other four defendants, to vacate the judgment on the verdict, and to remand the cause for a new trial.
Discussion
In three issues, Bui challenges the trial court's (1) order enforcing a Rule 11 agreement between Bui, the HOA, and Jason Wofford, (2) failure to rule on a motion to strike Bui's amended pleadings, and (3) order quashing Bui's trial-witness subpoenas. We address each of these in turn.
The Rule 11 agreement and the motion to quash
Bui's first and third issues complain of the trial court's order enforcing a Rule 11 agreement between Bui, the HOA, and Jason Wofford, and its order granting a motion to quash Bui's witness subpoenas. However, because Bui has not furnished a reporter's record from either hearing, we cannot determine that the trial court committed reversible error. See Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that appellant must provide complete record in order for appellate court to properly find reversible error); see also Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied.) (holding that in absence of reporter's record, appellate court must presume that evidence heard at hearing supports trial court's ruling). Accordingly, we overrule Bui's first and third issues.
The Second Amended Petition
Bui labels his second issue as a complaint about the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the HOA, but we take Bui's complaint here to be that the trial court erred in not considering Bui's Second Amended Petition and the HOA's subsequent motion to strike those pleadings. We characterize the issue as such because Bui does not actually reference any error specific to the grant of summary judgment—he only labels the issue that way.
During the litigation of the case, the HOA moved for summary judgment. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court sent the parties a letter ruling indicating that it would grant the motion and directed the parties to draft an order. Before the order was signed, Bui filed a second amended petition raising new claims against the HOA. The HOA moved to strike the second amended petition. The trial court took no action on the motion to strike, presumably because it rendered judgment against Bui.
To preserve error for appeal, the record must show that the trial court ruled on the motion or that the court refused to rule and the complaining party objected to the court's refusal to rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2). Nothing in the record here indicates Bui objected to any of the trial court's inaction during this time period. Accordingly, Bui failed to preserve error on this issue.
We overrule Bui's second issue.
Conclusion
Having overruled Bui's issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
/s/_________
Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: January 11, 2018