Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Solaija Enterprises, LLC, doing business as TG’s Cravings, appealed a take-nothing judgment entered for AmGuard Insurance Company after a jury trial. The jury found that Solaija failed to comply with certain conditions precedent under the insurance policy, that those failures prejudiced AmGuard, and that AmGuard also failed to comply with the policy.
On appeal, Solaija argued that the trial court improperly submitted jury questions concerning conditions precedent and prejudice, that the resulting findings were immaterial, and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support recovery on its contract claim. Solaija requested only a partial reporter’s record, consisting of the trial exhibits and jury-charge conference, and did not include any trial testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed because Solaija did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c). Although that rule permits an appeal on a partial reporter’s record, an appellant seeking the benefit of the rule must provide a statement of the points or issues to be presented. The clerk’s record contained neither Solaija’s request for the reporter’s record nor the required statement of appellate issues.
Because Solaija did not satisfy the rule, the court was required to presume that the omitted portions of the record supported the trial court’s judgment. That presumption defeated the legal-sufficiency challenge because the omitted trial testimony was necessary to review the evidence as a whole. It also prevented Solaija from establishing harmful jury-charge error because a harm analysis required consideration of the entire record. The court therefore overruled all appellate issues and affirmed the take-nothing judgment in all respects.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant using a partial reporter’s record must file the statement of points or issues required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c) to receive the presumption that the partial record is complete for the appeal.
- Without compliance, an appellate court presumes that omitted portions of the record support the trial court’s judgment.
- A record omitting all trial testimony cannot support a legal-sufficiency review or demonstrate harmful jury-charge error when the missing evidence must be considered.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that preservation of an adequate appellate record can determine an appeal without resolution of the underlying merits. Parties challenging evidentiary sufficiency or jury-charge submissions must provide the material needed for whole-record review or strictly follow the procedure governing partial records.