Date: 04-30-2009
Case Style: Janet Lou Douglass v. Gilberto C. Torrez and Ercilia J. Torrez
Case Number: 02-08-00189-CV
Judge: Per Curiam
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Second District on appeal from the 352nd District Court of Tarrant County
Plaintiff's Attorney: Janet L. Douglass
Defendant's Attorney: Gilberto C. Torrez
Description: Appellant Janet Lou Douglass, pro se, appeals the trial court=s take-nothing judgment on her claim for trespass against Appellees Gilberto C. Torrez and Ercilia J. Torrez.[2] We affirm.
Background
Douglass sued the Torrezes in October 2006 for Atrespass of title,@ trespass to real property Awith intent to assault,@ and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that in 1995 the Torrezes, who are her next-door neighbors, had built a fence that encroached on Douglass=s property. She further alleged that she did not discover the encroachment until October 2003 when the Colleyville water department determined that the fence was on her side of the property line. Douglass also claimed that the Torrezes continually Acut[ ] down >No Trespassing= signage@ she had erected on her property, threw concrete blocks into her swimming pool, and attempted to assault her. She sought $80,000 in Aback rent,@ $1 million in damages for attempted assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and an injunction to prevent further interference with her property rights.
Gilberto Torrez filed a pro-se answer, asserting a general denial andCas an affirmative defenseClack of consideration to support Douglass=s Aback-rent@ claim. He also asserted ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession as a Acounterclaim.@[3]
The parties tried the case to the bench. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment. The court reporter filed in this court two volumes of exhibits but no transcript of the trial testimony.[4] Douglass filed an Appellant=s brief.[5] Gilberto Torrez filed a notice that he did not intend to file an Appellee=s brief.
Discussion
In four points, Douglass argues that the trial court erred by (1) not holding Gilberto in contempt of court when he allegedly perjured himself at trial; (2) denying Douglass=s motion for continuance after Gilberto perjured himself;[6] (3) by not finding that Gilberto had trespassed on Douglass=s property; and (4) by not finding that Gilberto had intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Douglass by attempting to assault her.
An appellant has the burden to present to the appellate court a record that shows the error about which the appellant complains. Hiroms v. Scheffey,
76 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Chapman v. Hootman, 999 S.W.2d 118, 122 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). When a reporter=s record is necessary for an appeal but is not filed through the fault of the appellant, the appellate court must presume the evidence supports the trial court=s judgment. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Starkey, 157 S.W.3d 899, 905 (Tex. App.CDallas 2005, pet. denied). After a bench trial, a trial court=s findings of fact are conclusive unless the appellate court has a complete reporter=s record. Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994); In re JC, 250 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2008, pet. denied).
We cannot review any of Douglass=s points of error on the scant recordCcomprising two volumes of trial exhibits and no testimonyCshe caused to be filed in this court. See In re JC, 250 S.W.3d at 489. The record does not reflect Gilberto=s alleged perjury, Douglass=s motion for continuance, or any testimony from which we can evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court=s judgment. Without testimony to explain the significance of the exhibits filed with this court, the exhibits are inexplicable and probative of nothing. We therefore overrule all of Douglass=s points of error and affirm the trial court=s judgment. See id.
* * *
See: http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=20421
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
