Cantu v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

2 Citing cases

  1. Stonegate Fin. Corp. v. Broughton Maint. Ass'n, Inc.

    No. 02-18-00091-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 30, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    As the supreme court has instructed, there is "no question" that rule 34.6 requires us to affirm the trial court's judgment, because Stonegate "completely failed to submit [its] statement of points or issues." Bennett, 96 S.W.3d at 229-30 (also observing that "litigants who ignore our rules do so at the risk of forfeiting appellate relief"); see also Cantu v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 02-11-00293-CV, 2012 WL 955363, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 22, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that appellant could not show abuse of discretion in trial court's award of attorney's fees when appellant "neither filed a complete record on appeal nor complied with the partial reporter's record provisions of rule 34.6"); Davis v. Kaufman Cty., 195 S.W.3d 847, 851 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (quoting Bennett and holding that because appellant did not file a statement of points or issues, appellate court "must apply the presumption that the omitted portions of the record support the trial court's judgment" and accordingly "must overrule appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence" in connection with attorney's-fee award). As a result, we have no choice but to overrule Stonegate's issues on appeal.

  2. Singh v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

    NO. 03-14-00354-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 5, 2014)   Cited 5 times

    See, e.g., Gall v. Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09-99-00296-CV, 2000 WL 235148, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 2, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding that without reporter's record, court could not decide points of error related to alleged judicial bias and improper behavior on the part of opposing counsel). See, e.g., Cantu v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 02-11-00293-CV, 2012 WL 955363, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 22, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (in absence of reporter's record, appellate court could not conclude trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for continuance in forcible detainer action). Two additional arguments warrant further mention, however.