Opinion
No. 07-19-00295-CV
07-20-2020
AMANDA MOSLEY AND ROBRICK BOYD, APPELLANTS v. FRANK ELLIOT AND LINDSEY ELLIOT, APPELLEES
On Appeal from County Court at Law No.3 Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-575,255, Honorable Anne-Marie Carruth, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Amanda Mosley and Robrick Boyd, appellants, filed this pro se appeal from an adverse judgment in a forcible detainer action. We affirm the judgment.
Appellant Mosley's last name also appears in the Clerk's Record as "Moseley." Appellant Boyd's first name also appears in the Clerk's Record as "Rodrick." We will use "Mosley" and "Robrick," the versions reflected in the judgment of the trial court, as the spelling of these names in this opinion.
Analysis
Frank Elliot and Lindsey Elliot filed suit for forcible detainer in a Lubbock County justice court, seeking possession of the premises occupied by appellants. The justice court granted judgment in favor of the Elliots. Mosley and Boyd then appealed their case to the county court at law. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled in the Elliots' favor, granting them possession of the property.
Appellees' last name also appears in the Clerk's Record as "Elliott." Again, we will use the spelling reflected in the judgment of the trial court.
Mosley and Boyd filed the instant appeal. In doing so, they did not request a reporter's record memorializing the evidence presented at trial. By letter, this Court notified Mosley and Boyd of their failure to request preparation of the reporter's record and the import of the omission. Because no reporter's record was requested, we consider this appeal without such record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c) (authorizing court, when no reporter's record has been filed because appellant failed to request record, to "consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter's record for decision" after providing appellant with notice and opportunity to cure). We note that Mosley and Boyd have attached various documents to their brief. To the extent the documents attached to the brief are not formally included in the record on appeal, we may not consider them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1 (describing contents of appellate record); Burke v. Ins. Auto Auctions Corp., 169 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
In their three issues on appeal, Mosley and Boyd allege that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss the case and failing to award them possession and damages. They appear to argue that they were wrongfully evicted. However, without a reporter's record, we are unable to determine what evidence was before the trial court that would support findings that Mosley and Boyd are entitled to either possession of the premises or damages in connection with their eviction therefrom. See In re Spiegel, 6 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.) ("Without a reporter's record we do not know what, if any, evidence was presented to the trial court."). In the absence of a complete record on appeal, we must presume the omitted items support the trial court's judgment. See Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 230 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam); Heblsen v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 217 S.W.3d 527, 536 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) ("Where there is no reporter's record and no findings of fact, we assume the trial court heard sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings in support of its judgment.").
Conclusion
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judy C. Parker
Justice