C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
B LUE B ON

NE T F I NA NC IAL ASS ET S, Ap pe lla nt,
v. MA RV I N M I L L ER, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 82 -C V

Appea l from the County Court No. 5 of Col lin County , T e xas (TC# 005-3458-06)

O P I N I O N B lue bo nn e t F ina

nc ia l A sse ts a

pp e a ls a take -n oth ingjud g me nt e nte re d in fa vo r o f i ts debtor, Mr. Ma

rvin Miller. Be cause the trial cour t failed to comply

with a timely

reque st for fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw, we wi ll a bate the a pp e a l f or e ntr y of su c h f ind ing s. Blue bonnet Fina

ncial Assets (“ Blue bonnet”) sued Mr. Mar vin Mill er in De cembe r of 2006, beca

use he ha d defa

ulted on a cr edit car d acc ount owned by the entity . Blue bonnet’s petition included sever al g rounds for r ecove ry ; including br eac h of contra ct, ac count stated, quantum merit, unjust enrichment, a nd attorney ’s fe es. The c ase w as tried to the c ourt on J uly 5, 2007. On August, 3, 2007, the trial court e ntere d a take -nothingjudgme nt in favor of Mr. Miller. The trial c ourt then sig ned finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law on August 22, 2007. Contrary to the judgme nt, the trial court’ s findings state d that Mr. Miller owed B luebonnet over $15,000 on a past due acc ount and $750 for a ttorney ’s fe es. Alternatively , the finding s stated that Blue bonnet established its rig ht to recove r under its quantum merit and unjust enrichment cla ims.Mr . M ill e r h a s n ot a pp e are d in

thi s a pp e a l. 1 -2- Blue bonnet filed its notice of a ppeal on August 28, 2007. On that same date, Mr. Miller 1 filed an e merg ency

motion to s et aside the trial court’ s August 22 findings, or to amend or filed additional finding s. The trial c ourt g rante d Mr. Miller’s motion and set aside its finding s on Au gus t 30 . O n Se pte mbe r 5 , B lue bo nn e t f ile d a se c on d r e qu e st f

or fi nd ing s. Ac c or din gto Blue bonnet’s motion, Mr. Miller’s emer g ency motion was grante d without notice or hea ring
. Whe n th e tr ia l c ourt

fa ile d to re sp on d to B lue bo nn e t’ s se c on d r e qu e st f or fi nd ing s, the e nti ty tim e ly fi le d a no tic e of pa st d ue fi nd ing s. Th e tr ia l c ourt did no t r e sp on d to B lue bo nn e t’ s p a st due notice. In I ssu e Six, B lue bo nn e t c onte nd s th at th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ngto m ake fi nd ing s in response to its S eptember 5 reque st. Bec ause w e find this issue deter minative of the a

ppeal at this point , we will limit our review to this issue. Te xas R ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 29 6 p ro vid e s a pa rt y wi th t he pr oc e dura l r ight t o r e qu e st that the trial cour

t prepa re written finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. SeeT EX .R.C IV .P. 29 6. Te xas R

ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 29 7 ma

ke s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s duty

to m ake su c h f

ind ing s in response to a timely

reque st mandatory
. SeeT EX .R.C IV .P. 29 7; see also Cherne I ndus., Inc. v

. Magallanes , 7 63 S.W. 2d 76 8, 77 2 ( Te x. 19 99 ). A tri a l c ourt ’s fa ilure to r e sp on d to a tim e ly reque st is presumed to be har mful err or unless the a

ppellate r ecor d aff

irmatively

shows that the complainingparty

has suffe red no ha

rm. Cherne Indus., I

nc. , 763 S.W .2d at 772. As a pre liminary

matter, it is nece ssary

to addre ss the timeliness of Bluebonne t’s September 5 r equest for

finding s. A party ’s Rule 296 reque st for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law i s d ue to b e fi le d w iththe c le rk of the c ourt wi thi n tw e nty

da y s o f t he date the jud g me nt i s-3-

signe d. T EX .R.C IV .P. 29 6. I f t he tr ia l c ourt

fa ils to r e sp on d to a

re qu e st f or fi nd ing s w ith in twenty day s, the reque sting pa

rty must file a notice of

past due finding s within thi rty day s of the orig inal reque st. T EX .R.C IV .P. 297. Here , we have a r ather unique situation where a par ty has
ma de a tim e ly re qu e st f or fi nd ing s whic h w e re tim e ly e nte re d in

there c or d, on ly

to h ave tho se finding s be set aside pursuant to the opposingparty ’s motion, outsi de time per iod in which another reque st, or a re quest for a dditional findings, could be made. SeeT EX .R.C IV .P. 296, 298. Were we to count from August 3, the date the judgment was signed, B luebonnet’s September 5 r equest for

finding s would be untimely , as would its past due notice. B luebonnet would no longe r be e ntitled to findings. See Che rne Indus., Inc

. , 7 63 S.W. 2d at 77 2. Th is r e su lt fr us tr ate s th e purp os e of

Rul e s 2 96 and

29 7, and le ave s a pa rt y wh o h a s o the rw ise c omp lie d w ith the rules’ require ments without a remedy . Wit hout findings of fac t and conc lusions of law, Blue bonnet would be f

orce d to gue ss what the trial c ourt’s finding s were unless they are provided to them. Se eBrown v . M c Go nagil l , 9 40 S.W. 2d

17 8, 18 0 ( Te x.Ap p. -- San Anto nio 1996, no writ). Putting the a ppellant in the position of havingto gue ss the trial court’ s rea sons for r ender ing judgment ag ainst it defeats the inherent pur pose of Rules 296 and 297. Larry F. Smith, Inc. v . The W

eber Co., Inc

. , 110 S.W .3d 611, 614 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2003, wr it denied). The purpose of a r equest unde r the rule s is to “narrow the base s of the judg ment to only a portion of [the multi ple] claims and defe nses, there by reduc ing the number of c ontentions that the appellant must raise on appea l.” Id . Requiringan appe llant to undertake a broa d attack on a ll the potential bases f

or the trial c ourt’s judg ment require s an appe llant to ex pend re source s on briefingthat may

be re ndere d meaning less afte r the trial c ourt’s finding s become available
. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. v. Laca , 243 S.W .3d 791, 795 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.)
.-4-

Blue bonnet has c ontinually pursued its reque st for finding s. Be cause Blue bonnet has
c on sc ie nti ou sly

e xer c ise d it s r ight t o f

ind ing s d e sp ite its op po sin gpa rt y ’s a c tio ns , a

nd be c a us e
we c on c lud e it w ou ld f

ru str ate the purp os e s o f R ule s 2 96 and

29 7 to ho ld o the rw ise , w e wi ll calc ulate B luebonnet’s de adline for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law fr om the date the tr ial court set a side the initial set of finding s. When we ca lculate f rom that date, B luebonnet’s September 5 r equest wa s timely , as wa s its past due notice. Ther efor e, the tria l court had a n aff irmative duty

to enter f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of lawpursuant to a timely reque st. B e c a us e the c ourt

ha s n ot e nte re d f

ind ing s, we mus t ne xt ad dr e ss t he qu e sti on

of ha rm . The g ener al rule is that an a ppellant has be en har

med by a trial c ourt’s fa ilure to enter fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw i f, un de r t he c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he c a se , h e is f

or c e d to guess the re asons the trial c ourt ruled a g ainst him. Larry F. Smith, Inc. , 1 1 0 S
. W
. 3 d at6 1 4
. If there is only

a sing le g round of r ecove ry or a sing le def

ense in the c ase, the rec ord shows the appellant ha s suffer ed no har m beca use he is not forc ed to guess the re asons for the trial court’ s judgme nt. Id . In a ca se such a s this one, where there are multipl e grounds upon which the tr ial court c ould have ba sed its decision, the re cord doe s not affirmatively show appe llant was not harme d by

the trial cour

t’s failure to respond to a timely reque st for finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law
. See Laca , 243 S.W .3d at 795. The pr efe rable reme dy in this si tuation is for the appe llate cour

t to abate the a

ppeal to allow the missingfinding s to be enter ed. Cherne Indus., Inc. , 7 63 S.W. 2d

at 77 3; Broo k

s v . H ou sing A uth . o

f Cit yof El Pas o , 926 S.W .2d 316, 321 (T ex . Ap p . -- E l P as o 1 9 9 6 , n o wr i t ). Ac co rd i n gl y , we ab at e t h i s ap p ea l an d d i re ctth e t ri al j u d ge to enter f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of lawand for war d the same to the D istrict Clerk of Colli n County

within thirty

(30) da y s of the date of this opinion. I t is further or dere d that the-5-

Di str ic t Cle rk

of Col lin County pr e pa re a su pp le me nta l c le rk ’s re c or d a nd fo rw ard the same to this Court wit h fiftee n (15) da y s of the filingof the finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.

May 1, 2009 Per Curiam B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.