Opinion
No. 04-03-00538-CV.
Delivered and Filed: May 12, 2004.
Appeal from the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas, Trial Court No. 02-02-18079-CV, Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding.
Affirmed.
Sitting: Paul W. GREEN, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
During appellant and appellee's marriage, appellant's father deeded real property to appellant. In the subsequent divorce decree, the trial court awarded appellant and appellee each a fifty percent interest in the property as their separate property. On appeal, both parties agree the property was a gift from appellant's father. The sole issue on appeal is whether the property was a gift to appellant as his separate property or a gift to both appellant and appellee as their separate property. Appellant contends the property was a gift to him alone; therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by divesting him of his separate property when it awarded appellee a fifty percent interest in the property. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found that the property was a gift to both appellant and appellee. We review a trial court's decision to characterize and divide property in a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981). An appellate court may reverse a trial court for abuse of discretion only if, after searching the record, it is clear that the trial court's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. Sutton v. Eddy, 828 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, no writ). Therefore, the party that complains of an abuse of discretion has the burden to bring forth a record showing such abuse. Sutton, 828 S.W.2d at 58; see also Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam). Absent such a record, the reviewing court must presume that the evidence before the trial judge was adequate to support the decision. Schafer, 813 S.W.2d at 155; Sutton, 828 S.W.2d at 58.
Here, a copy of the deed is not included in the clerk's record, and appellant has apparently decided to proceed without obtaining a reporter's record of any proceedings related to the trial court's characterization and division of property. Instead, appellant requested that the court reporter provide only a transcript of the hearing on his motion for new trial. At this hearing no evidence was offered or admitted. Because a consideration of appellant's complaint on appeal requires a consideration of matters that transpired before the court in one or more of the hearings relating to the property at issue, we are unable to determine whether there was error in the absence of a statement of facts (or of a complete statement of facts) from any applicable hearing. Therefore, we must presume there was evidence before the trial court to support its finding that the property was a gift to both appellant and appellee. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.
A copy of the deed is contained in the appendix to appellant's brief. However, appendix exhibits are not considered part of the record on appeal. See Brown v. McGonagill, 940 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
CONCLUSION
We overrule appellant's issue on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.