Opinion
No. 05-05-01116-CV
Opinion Filed October 27, 2006.
On Appeal from the 301st Family District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 92-7452-T.
Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals from an order denying his motion to reinstate his appeal from a child support order. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to reinstate his appeal. We overrule appellant's point of error and affirm the trial court's order.
On November 24, 2003, the trial court entered a default order concerning license suspension and confirming child support arrearage. Appellant sought and obtained a new trial from this order on the ground that he did not receive proper notice. The trial court subsequently entered a new order on March 17, 2004 that confirmed child support arrearage and stayed the license suspension. Appellant did not appeal from this order. On January 4, 2005, the Attorney General filed a motion for child support judgment and to revoke the order staying the license suspension. On April 5, 2005, the associate judge entered an order enforcing the child support obligation and revoking the order staying the license suspension. Appellant timely appealed this order to the district court. On June 3, 2005, appellant failed to appear at the hearing on his appeal and the trial court dismissed the appeal. Appellant filed a motion to reinstate. The associate judge conducted a hearing on the motion and recommended that the motion be denied. The trial court signed an order denying appellant's motion to reinstate on August 31, 2005. Appellant timely filed this appeal.
Although appellant obtained a new trial, one of his arguments in his brief is that the trial court erred in entering the order on November 24, 2003. We do not address appellant's argument with respect to this order.
We review the denial of a motion to reinstate under an abuse of discretion standard. See Franklin v. Sherman Indep. Sch. Dist., 53 S.W.3d 398, 401 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1986). When an appellant fails to file a reporter's record, an appellate court must presume the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's order. Wilms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796, 804 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
Appellant received a hearing on his motion to reinstate. However, we have no reporter's record from the hearing. The associate judge's report from the hearing indicates that there was no court reporter present at the hearing. Accordingly, we must presume that the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to reinstate was sufficient to support the trial court's order. See Wilms, 190 S.W.3d at 804. On the face of the record before us, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to reinstate. We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
We affirm the trial court's order.