# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

July 24, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00234

- CV

Johnathan David RICE and Diana Rice
,

Appellant s

v.
LEWIS ENERGY GROUP, L.P.; Lewis Petro Properties, Inc.; Lewis Resource Management,

LLC; Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd.; and Tercero Navarro, Inc., Appellee s From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 08936 Honorable Pet er A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On January 29, 2019 , the trial court signed a final judgment in the underlying suit

. Plaintiffs/Appellants timely filed (1) a r equest for findings of fact and conclusions of law and (2) a notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 296, 297. Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal , and Appellees timely filed a notice of cross

- appeal. Despite a proper request and reminder, the trial court did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes , 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989) (noting that, after proper request and reminder, “the trial court’ s duty to file findings an d conclusions is mandatory ”); accord Brown v. McGonagill , 940 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no writ). If the trial court fails to file findings and conclusions a fter a timely request and reminder, w e presume harm unless the face of the record affirmatively shows otherwise. Tenery v. Tenery , 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996) ; McLaughlin, Inc. v. Northstar Drilling Tech s. , Inc. , No. 04

- 02

- 00511

- CV, 2003 WL 21696635 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio July 23, 2 003, no pet.) (mem. op.).
On July 19, 2019, Ap pell ants filed an un opposed motion to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court with an order for it to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. In their motion, A ppell ants assert there are multiple grounds for recovery or defense and move this court to abate and remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law to avoid an undue burden on them

. See Larry F. Smith, Inc. v. The Weber Co., Inc. , 110 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 2003, pe t. denied) (noting that “[w] hen there are two or more possible grounds of

recovery or defense,

. . . an appellant is forced to guess what the trial cou rt found unless the trial court’ s findings are provided to him ,” and such forced guessing is harmful). The face of the record does not affirmatively show the trial court’s reasons for its judgment. See McLaughlin, Inc. , 2003 WL 21696635 , at *2.
W e GRANT A ppell ants ’ motion. We ABATE this appeal and REMAND this caus e to the trial court.
We ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and provide them to the trial court clerk within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We FURTHER ORDER the trial court clerk to file in this court
, within FORTY DAYS of the date of this order
, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and conclusions. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court