A ffirm and Opinion Filed September 24, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 20
- 00281
- CV AMERICAN PRIDE XPRESS LOGISTICS, INC. AND THOMAS E.

FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant s

V. JOE JORDAN TRUCKS, INC. , Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 07192 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Myers American Pride X press Logistics, Inc. and Thomas E. Flores appeal the trial court’s judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Joe Jordan Trucks, Inc. awarding it damages of $300,000 plus attorney’s fees. Appellants bring three issues on appeal contending the trial court err ed by (1) denying appellants’ motion to dismiss under Rule of Civil Procedure 91a , (2) denying appellants ’ motion for summary judgment, and (3) denying appellants ’ motion for directed verdict. We conclude the denial s of appellants ’ motion to dismiss under Rule 91 a and motion for summary judgment are

no t orders that can be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment following a trial on– 2

–

the merits at which appellee prevailed

. We also conclude appellants failed to show the trial court erred by denying the moti on for directed verdict because they did not bring a complete reporter’s record of the trial. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND In 2006, David Varela and two partners purchased property in Dallas. Varela formed a corporation, Joe Jordan Tr ucks, Inc., to manage the property. Although the name of the company was “Joe Jordan Trucks, Inc.,” Varela testified that he and others in the business office referred to the company as “Joe Jordan, Inc.” In 2007, “David Varela and/or assigns” leased the property to American Pride Xpress Logistics , Inc. , a corporation owned by Thomas Flores, for a term ending October 31, 2011. American Pride was frequently late in paying the rent , and Varela notified American Pride in 2008 that it was in default and would be evicted if the default w as not cured. The issue was resolved through amending the lease and by Flores becoming a guarantor of American Pride’s performance of the lease. Varela testified he assigned the lease to Joe Jordan Truc ks, Inc. by 2009, but he did not make a written assignment of the lease

. However, he instructed his CPA to report income from the property on appellee’s income tax return. Varela testified that i n 2010 , he intended to deed the property to appellees,

“ Joe Jordan Trucks, Inc., ” but he mistak enly instructed his attorney, Lee Cox, to make the grantee in the deed “Joe Jordan, Inc.” No such corporation existed at the time. The mistake was not discovered until late 2016 or early 2017.– 3

–

Meanwhile, i n 2014, Vare la learned American Pride was excavating and selling sand mined from the property. Varela demanded that American Pride cease and desist from the se activities. When American Pride continued excavating , this lawsuit with “Joe Jordan, Inc.” as plaintiff was filed against American Pride and Flores in 2015

. American Pride stopped paying rent after December 2016. On December 14, 2016, Flores formed a corporation called “Joe Jordan, Inc.,” and two days later, on December 16, 2016, Flores signed a quitclaim deed purporting to caus e “Joe Jordan, Inc.” to transfer the property to Flores

. Three days later, on December 19, 2016, Flores signed a special warranty deed purporting to convey the property to Frederick Brown, Flores’s accountant. Varela learned in December or January 2016 that Flores was claiming his accountant owned the property. That was also when Varela l earned the 2010 deed misnamed the grantee. Cox drafted and Varela signed a correction warranty deed correcting the misnomer on the 2010 deed to show the grantee was “ Joe Jordan Trucks, Inc. ” Varela amended the 2015 petition repeatedly, changing the plaint iff to “Joe Jordan Trucks, Inc.” and alleging causes of action , including breach of contract,– 4

–

concerning appellants’ unauthorized mining of the property and their failure to pay
rent

. 1 Flores testified he had been doing business as “Joe Jordan, Inc.” sin ce 2008 even though the corporation did not then exist. Flores testified he agreed with Varela and his partners in 2010 to purchase the property by making monthly payments

. According to Flores, they agreed that Flores would own the property when his monthly payments totaled $600,000 . Varela asked Flores who should be the grantee in the deed, and Flores said “Joe Jordan, Inc.” Flores testified he made the last payment in December 2016 and then officially formed the corporation Joe Jordan,
Inc. He then transferred the property from Joe Jordan, Inc. to himself and then to
Brown as collateral for the use of a piece of equipment Brown owned. Flores testified he used the prope rty for parking trucks. He said the property had been used previously as an auto salvage yard, and there were pieces of metal in the ground that could damage the trucks. Flores excavated the dirt and sand on one area of the property down to about twenty feet , sifted ou t the metal, and then filled in the hole by combining the removed sand with other materials. He testified this combination of material s, which he compacted, hardened the surface and made it better suited for parking trucks. Flores testifie d he did not sell the sand he removed.

1 Appellee also brought caus es of action concerning appellants’ deeding the property from Joe Jordan, Inc. to Flores and from Flores to Brown . Those claims were not part of the motions and orders relevant to this appeal, and those claims were not submitted to the jury

.– 5

–

In 2017, a

ppellants filed a motion to dismiss appellee’s breach of contract claims under Rule 91a, asserting appellee’s petition did not allege that appellee was a party to or an assignee of the 2007 lease. The trial court denied that motion. Appellants then filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that because appellee was not a party to the lease, it could not enforce the lease. Appellee amended the petition to allege that after the transfer of the property in 2010, “ the lease in question was internally transferred to the corporation, Joe Jordan Trucks, Inc.” In 2019, the case proceeded to a jury trial. After appellee rested its case in chief , appellant s moved for a directed verdict o n the ground t hat appellee was never a party to the dispute. The trial court denied the motion for directed verdict. Appellants then presented their case in chief. The jury found there was a lease between appellee and appell ant s, that appellants failed to comply with the lease by causing damage to the property and by failing to make rental payments, and that appellee ’s damages for accrued unpaid rental and for damage to the property were $175,250 and $124,750, respectively. The trial court rendered judgment on the ver dict awarding appellee damages of $300,000 plus additional amounts for attorney’s fees.– 6

– DENIAL OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS In their first and second issues, appellants contend the trial court erred by denying appellants’ Rule 91a motion to dismiss and motion for s ummary judgment on appellee’s breach of contract claim s because appellee was not a party to the lease.
T he trial court’s ruling 2 denying the motion for summary judgment is not one we can review. “The denial of a motion for summary judgment when followed by a conventional trial on the merits does not finally decide any issue before the trial
court , ” and the order denying the motion may not be grounds for reversal of a final judgment. Anderton v. S chindler , 154 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, no pet.); see also Clark v. Dillard’s, Inc. , 460 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2015, no pet.). We overrule appellants’ second issue. Under R ule 91a, a party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the ground it has no basis in law or fact. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 91a.1. “A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with the inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought.” Id. In ruling on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss , the trial court may not consider evidence and must decide the motion “solely on the pleading of the cause of action, together with any pleading

2 The record does not contain an order expressly denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment. However, the discussion of the motion for directed verdict in the reporter’s record includes statements by the trial court and the parties that suggest the tr ial court denied the motion for summary judgment. Appellee does not assert that appellants failed to obtain a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Although it is not clear that appellants preserved error for appellate review by obtaining an express or implied ruling on their motion for summary judgment, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a) (2) , in the interest of justice, we will presume that the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment.– 7

–

exhibits permitted by Rule 59.” T EX
. R. C IV
. P . 91a.6; Highland Cap ital Mgmt., LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C. , No. 05

- 15

- 00055

- CV, 2016 WL 164528, at *4 (Tex. App.

—

Dallas Jan. 14, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). “ We review the merits of a Rule 91a motion de novo because the availability of a remedy under the facts alleg ed is a question of law and the rule ’ s factual

- plausibility standard is akin to a legal

- sufficiency review. ” City of Dallas v. Sanchez , 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)

. W hen the trial court denies a Rule 91a motion to dismiss and the case pro ceeds to a trial on the merits at which the plaintiff prevails , the m otion to dismiss becomes irrelevant and its denial is moot because the plaintiff “has proved, not merely alleged, facts sufficient to support relief.” Raider Ranch, LP v. Lugano, Ltd. , 579 S.W.3d 131, 133 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2019, no pet.) (quoting Bennett v. Pippin , 74 F.3d 578, 585 (5th Cir. 1 996) ( discussing a ppealability of denial of F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the plaintiff prevails in a subsequent trial on the merits ) )

. That is the situation in this case: appellants filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss appellee’s breach of contract claim s, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case proceeded to a conventional trial on the merits at which appellee prevailed on the breach of contract claims

. The jury found “a lease and / or guarantee agreement exist[ed] between” appellee and appellants

. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for appellee. At that point, the Rule 91a motion to dismiss became– 8

–

irrelevant and the trial court’s denial of the motion became moot because appellee had proved, and not merely alleged, that th e breach of contract claims had a basis in law and fact

. We conclude the trial court’s denial of appell ant s’ Rule 91a motion to dismiss is moot and is not a ruling we may consider on appeal in this case. 3 We overrule appellants’ first issue.

DENIAL OF MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT In their third issue, appellants contend the trial court erred by denying their motion for directed verdict. Like the motion for summary judgment and the Rule 91a motion to dismiss, the motion for directed verdict argued appellee lacked standing to assert the breach of contract claim s because it was not a party to the lease. Appellants waived any error from the denial of their motion for directed verdict. Although they moved for a directed verdict after appellee rested, and the trial court denied the moti on, they proceeded to present their own evidence and did
not re

- urge the motion for directed verdict when the evidence closed. “If a party proceeds to present evidence after that party has moved for a directed verdict, such party must reurge the motion fo r directed verdict at the close of the case, or any error in its denial is waived.” 1986 Dodge 150 Pickup Vin No. 1B7FD14T1GS006316 v.
State , 129 S.W.3d 180, 183 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2004, no pet.) ; see Elliott v.

3 Whether the denial of a Rule 91a motion to dismiss may be co nsidered on appeal when the plaintiff did not prevail at trial is not before us , and we make no holding on that situation.– 9

–

Lewis , No. 05

- 91

- 01216

- CV, 1994 WL 709333 , at * 7 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 16, 1994, no pet.) (not designated for publication) . Because appellants presented their own case in chief after the trial court denied their motion for directed verdict and did
not re

- urge their motion for directed verdict a t the close of the evidence, they waived the trial court’s denial of the motion for directed verdict. Even if the motion for directed verdict were not waived by appellants’ presentation of evidence after the denial of the motion and their failure to re

- u rge the motion at the close of the case , we must conclude the record does not show the trial court erred by denying the motion. The standard of review for a ruling on a motion for directed verdict is a legal sufficiency or “no evidence” standard of review

. L.G. Ins. Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Leick , 378 S.W.3d 632, 642 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2012, pet. denied). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the nonmovant produced more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise

a fact issue on the material questions presented. Id. We consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the movant. Sudan v. Sudan , 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex. 2 006) (per curiam) (quoting City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005)). A directed verdict is improperly granted if the respondent brings forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. King Ran ch, Inc. v. Chapman , 1 18 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003).– 10

–

The appellant has the burden to bring forward an appellate record showing reversible error. Schafer v. Conner , 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam) ; Uhmeh v. Rivas , No. 05

- 15

- 00784

- CV, 2016 WL 3442378, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 22, 2016, no pet.)

. Review of the sufficiency of the evidence requires a complete reporter’s record. Schafer , 813 S.W.2d at 155 ; Sareen v. Sareen , 350 S.W.3d 314, 317 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 20 11, no pet.). When the reporter’s record is incomplete, the reviewing court presumes the missing testimony supports the trial court’s judgment. 4 Schafer , 813 S.W.2d at 155 ; Birnbaum v. Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C. , 120 S.W.3d 470, 476

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2003, pet. denied). “ This is because without a complete reporter ’ s record, it is impossible to review all the evidence presented to the trier of fact or to apply the appropriate sufficiency standards .” Sareen , 350 S.W.3d at 317. During appel lee’s case in chief, it presented the testimony of Lee Cox, the attorney who prepared the deed that named “J oe Jordan, Inc.” as the grantee in the 2009 deed and who later prepared the correction deed. Cox testified through a videotaped deposition. Before the testimony was played for the jury , appellants’ attorney told the court, “We have asked that the court reporter not transcribe this

4 Under Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6 (c) , a party may appeal without a complete record by designating certain portions of the repo rter’s record , and the appellate court must presume the incomplete record is complete for purposes of the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.6 (c). Strict compliance with the rule is required for the presumption to apply. $4,310 in U.S. Currency v. State , 13 3 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2004, no pet.). Appellants did not purport to follow rule 34.6(c).– 11

–

portion since we’ve got a transcript of it.” However, the transcript of Cox’s testimony was not made part of the record. Without Cox’s testimony, the reporter’s record is incomplete, and we must presume his testimony support ed the trial court’s judgment. Schafer , 813 S.W.2d at 155; Birnbaum , 120 S.W.3d at 476

– 77. Appellants created this situation by requesting that Cox’s testimony not be recorded by the court reporter and by failing to make a transcription of Cox’s testimony part of the record. We conclude appellants have failed to show the trial court erred by denying their motion for directed verdict. We overrul e their third point of error. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

200281f.p05 /Lana Myers/ / LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 12

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
AMERICAN PRIDE XPRESS LOGISTICS, INC. and THOMAS E. FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants No. 05

- 20

- 00281

- CV V. JOE JORDAN TRUCKS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 07192. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Partida

- Kipness and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee JOE JORDAN TRUCKS, INC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant s AMERICAN PRIDE XPRESS LOGISTICS, INC. and THOMAS E. FL ORES, INDIVIDUALLY.
Judgment entered this 24 th day of September , 2021

.