Opinion
01-22-00631-CV
05-09-2023
KEITH WAYNE VAN NESS, Appellant v. JARRETT HOBBS AND CHELSEA HOBBS, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 & Probate Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. CI64306
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Peter Kelly Justice
Appellant Keith Van Ness appeals the county court at law's judgment in favor of appellees Jarrett and Chelsea Hobbs. The case began when Van Ness sued the Hobbses for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to an alleged agreement to purchase a vehicle from the Hobbses. The Hobbses countersued Van Ness for harassment and to collect past due debt or rent. The justice of the peace ruled that Van Ness take nothing on his claims and ruled in favor of the Hobbses on their counterclaims. Van Ness appealed to the county court at law. After a trial de novo, the county court at law ruled in favor of the Hobbses and ordered that Van Ness pay $3,788 in damages. On appeal, Van Ness argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment as to $2,500 of the damages. We affirm.
We begin by noting that this case was submitted on the clerk's record only; there is no reporter's record of the trial de novo before us. When a reporter's record is necessary to consider appellant's issues, in the absence of the reporter's record the trial court's findings of fact are conclusive, and we presume sufficient evidence supported any additional necessary findings. See Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. Assurance Servs., N.A., 972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998) ("We indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court's findings in the absence of a [reporter's record]."); Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (in absence of reporter's record, "it is presumed that the omitted evidence supports the trial court's judgment").
Before the case was submitted, the court reporter filed a notice with this court stating that there is no reporter's record for the trial de novo at issue here. Van Ness did not follow the necessary procedures to submit this case on a partial reporter's record and does not assert that the reporter's record was lost or destroyed. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c), (f).
Van Ness argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's judgment in favor of the appellees. Evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's judgment requires that we review the evidence submitted during trial. See, e.g., City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810-11, 822 (Tex. 2005) (setting out standard of review). When, as here, there is no reporter's record or findings of fact, we presume the trial court heard sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings in support of its judgment. Curry v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 472 S.W.3d 346, 349-50 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing Bryant, 972 S.W.2d at 31). Accordingly, we presume the trial court heard sufficient evidence to support its judgment in favor of the Hobbses. See Curry, 427 S.W.3d at 349-50 (indulging every presumption in favor of trial court's findings when no reporter's record filed).
To the extent Van Ness argues that the trial court erred in admitting various pieces of evidence offered by the appellees because the evidence was not relevant, we overrule his complaint. See Tex. R. Evid. 401 (defining relevant evidence). "A reporter's record is required . . . to preserve evidentiary complaints for appellate review when evidence is introduced in open court." Verno Constr., Inc. v. Nelson, 460 S.W.3d 145, 150 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam). As there is no written objection to this evidence in the clerk's record of the trial de novo, without the reporter's record, we cannot conclude that this issue was preserved. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 33.1(a) (requirements for preservation for appellate review); see also Northside Pharm., LLC v. AMJ Inv. LLC, No. 14-19-00094-CV, 2021 WL 330067, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 2. 2021, no pet.) (mem. op) (overruling evidentiary issue on appeal from trial de novo in county court at law because no reporter's record); see also Kaminetzky v. Dosohs I, Ltd., No. 14-03-00567-CV, 2004 WL 1116960, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 20, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (trial de novo is "a new and independent action" which moots objections made in prior proceeding in justice court) (quotation omitted). We overrule Van Ness's issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.