A p p el l ant s’ bri ef do es not i ncl ud e an i ss ue o ne(a). 1 

## NO. 12-07-00225-CV

IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ APP EAL FRO

M T HE IN THE GUARDIANS HIP OF LUKE FORR EST HUMPHR EY, § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF AN INCAPAC

ITATED PERS ON § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION J oAnn B owshot and Patricia Pondoff appea l f rom order s enter ed in the g uardia nship of Luke For rest Humphre y , an inca pacitate d person. The y raise issues c oncer

ning the trial court’ s jur isd ic tio n, fr a

ud , e vid e nc e , a c ts a

nd omi ssi on s o f t

he g ua rd ian a nd the a tto rn e y a d li te m, a

nd c os ts. We modify

in part and a ffirm a s modified.
B ACKG ROUND Luk e F or re st H ump hr e y

ha s b e e n i n c a p a c i t a t e d s i n c e a Ja n u a ry 27 , 2 00 5 a

uto mob ile a c c ide nt. I nAp ri l 2 0 0 5 , h i s fa t h er , L an dy Hu mp h re y , wa s ap p o i n t ed t em p o ra ry gu ar d i an an d J

. S co t tKi l l o u gh
was a ppointed attorney

ad litem. Luke’s mother , Susan McL end o n, and his aunts, B owshot and Pondoff, opposed Humphre y ’s appointment as g uardia n. The pa rties eng ag ed in a pr otrac ted leg al battle that included two pr ior appe als to this cour t. Humphrey was a

ppointed perma

nent g uardia

n on May 17, 2007. This appea l ensued.
J URI S DI CT I ON I n th e ir fi rs t is su e , App e lla

nts a sse rt tha t juri sd ic tio n w a s n e ve r “ pr op e rl y a c qu ir e d. ” I n th e ir issue one(b) , they

asser t that the g uardian s h i p h as b een a conspirac y

to conce al fra

ud. Wit hout 1W e se e n o t hing in t he rec o rd t ha t ca use s us t o q ue st i o n the tri al co urt’ s jurisdicti o n o r o urs. 2 2 specific argument, they

list t en re asons why

jurisdiction fails. Ap pe lla nts be g in t

he ir dis c us sion unde r t

he se iss ue s w iththe state me nt t hat L uk e ’s ri g hts have be en violated, c iting to a fede ral civil rig hts statute. Appellants have not pointed out the place in the voluminous reco rd wh er e t h ey prese nted this complaint to the trial court and r ece ived an adver se ruling . Be cause it was not prese rved, this complaint is waived. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1. Their initial jurisd ictional complaint in this i ssue is that the application for tempora ry g uardia nship was defe ctive. We shall assume that they are attempting to r aise the same complaint raised in their

appea l in 12-07-00118-CV, that the a pplication wa s d ef

ec t i v e bec ause it wa s not verifie d. As we e x plained in that opinion, Humphrey amende d the application by filing a ver ification befor e the tria l court ente red the order confirming his a

ppointment a s temporar

y g uardia n. Thus, the application pre sents no jurisdictional bar. The rema ining n i n e “r easons” are g ener al, vague, and unsupported by

argument or authority

. Consequently , Appellants have not e stablished that the trial court lac ked jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1(h)C. M o re o v er, A ppellants have included no discussion whatsoever

on the fra

ud alleg ation. See D a nie l v . Fa lc o n I

nt e r es t Re alty Corp. , 190 S.W .3d 177, 189 (Tex. App.–Houston [1s t Dist.] 2005, no pet.). We over rule issues one and one (b). 2 I n their sec ond issue, Appellants conte nd the trial cour t abused its discretion whe n it refuse d to addre ss the issue of jurisdiction at the final he ar i n g. T h ey as s ert that the D ece mber 4, 2006
a me nd e d a

pp lic a tio n f

or a pp oin tme nt o f a

g ua rd ian a nd to c on ve rt

the te mporary guardian sh ip t o perma nent is defe ctive. The y claim that the sworn notary ’s statement attac hed to the De cembe r 4 amende d application wa s merely copied f rom the Nove mber 14 a

pplication and is there fore invalid,
makin g the a

pp lic a tio n inv a lid and re su lti ngin a la c k o f j ur isd ic tio n. I n th e ir thi rd iss ue , App e lla

nts
c on te nd the a pp lic a ti on is frau du le nt f or the sa me re a so n a

nd the re fo re the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in allowing it to st and. On No ve mbe r 1 4, 20 06 , H ump hr e y fi le d h is a

pp lic a tio n f

or a pp oin tme nt of g ua

rd ian a nd to
con v e rt te mp o r ar

y g u ar d ia n s h ip to p e r

ma n e n t. I t in d ic a te s th a t it w a s s w o r n to b y a n o ta

r y on November

10, 2006. On Dec ember 4, 2006, Humphrey

filed his first amende d appli cation which
a lso ind ic a te s th a t it

wa s sw or

n to by the same no tary

on No ve mbe r 1 0, 20 06 . T he re is n o d a te3

any wher e on the doc ument other than the file stamp and the handwritten date at issue. Howe ver, upon scrutinizing the two docume nts, it i s clea r that they are not copies. Although the handwr itten words and numbers ar e the same on ea ch docume nt, the handwr iting is not prec isely the same. Fur ther, t h e n otary

seal is stamped at a slight a ng le on the first a

pplication but not on the second. I t seems clea

r t hat t he date of November 10 on the amended a pplication is merely

a ty pog raphic al
err or. See S

a n d e r s v . C a mp , 154 S.W .2d 306, 308 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1941, no writ) (A fter looking at the lang uag e of the plea of privileg e as a whole, the court de termined the date on the jurat
was a ty pog raphic al error.). As such, it does not invalidate the ve rification pag e, jurisdiction is not aff ecte d, and it does not constitute fra ud. Appellants also asser

t that the temporar

y g uardia nship was not valid and had e x pired seve ral times beca

use the g uardia

n had not filed a

nnual re ports. There fore , they contend, the tr ial court’s
or de r a pp oin tin g Humphre y

pe rm ane nt gua

rd ian c ann ot s tand. Th is argume nt i s w ith ou t me ri t. Section 875( l ) provides that the term of a temporar y g uardia n expires at the conc lusion of the hear ing challeng ing the application or on the date a permanent gua rdian qualifies to serve. T EX . P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 875( l ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Fur thermore , the May

4, 2005 order

appointing Hu m p h rey te mpo ra ry g ua rdi an p ro vid e d th a t th e te mpo ra ry g ua rd ians hip wo uld

be e ff e c tiv e un til the c on te st to t he a pp oin tme nt o f a

pe rm ane nt gua

rd ian is re so lve d. Th e tr ia l court did no t e rr in r e fu sin g to addre ss jurisdiction at the hear ing o n t h e ap plication to conver t the temporar

y g uardia nship to a perma nent one. We over

rule issues two and thr ee. I n their si x th issue, Appellants contend that Killough, the ad litem, was not prope rly befor e the cour t and the trial court did not establish in pe rsonam jurisdiction ove r Luke. Specifica lly , they
c omp la in th at Ki ll oug h d id n ot f ile an a ns we r o n b e ha lf

of Luk e so the re wa s n o ju sti c ia ble controve rsy . They

argue that the e ntire g uardia nship was base d on a hy

pothetical contr oversy . The re c o r d

d o e s n o t s u

p p o rt t h e ir c o n te n ti o n s . B y

o r d e r o f A p r il 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , th e tr ia l c ourt
a pp oin te d K ill ou g h b oth

a tto rn e y a d li te m and

g ua rd ia n a d li te m to re pr e se nt L uk e ’s int e re sts
. Killough a

ppear ed in per son on Luke’s behalf at the hear ing on A pril 26, 2005 and filed a

n orig inal
an s w e r o n b e h a l f o f Lu k e o n M ay 4 , 2 0 0 5

. F u rt h e r m o r e , g u ar d i an s h i p s d o n o tr e qu i r e a c o n t r o v e r s y. Guar dians are appointed whe n, as in this case, a n individual is i ncapa citated a nd unable to provide for himself, “a s n ecessary to promote and prote ct the we ll-being of the pe rson.” See T EX . P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 60 2 ( Ve rn on 20 03 ). Ki llo ug h w a s p ro pe rl y be fore th e co ur

t and the c ourt ha d in4

persona m jurisdiction over Luke. We over rule Appe llants’ six th issue.
E VI DE NCE I n their issue three (a) , Appellants contend the t rial court abused its discretion and the ad litem fa ile d in his du ty by no t ver if y ing a ff ida vit s att a c he d to and

inf or ma tio n c on ta ine d in

do c tor s’ re po rt s submitt ed by

Humphrey . They

asser t that the dates on three aff idavits wer e chang ed il leg ally in a deliberate attempt to dece ive the cour t and t am p er wi th evidence . When offer ed into evidenc e, Appellants had no obje ctions to these exhibit s. Appellants did not prese nt these complaints to the trial court. B eca

use they wer e not pre serve d, these c omplaints have bee n waived. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1. W e over

rule issue thre e(a ).

A B US E AND N EGLEC T OF THE W ARD I n their four

th issue, Appellants asser t that the trial court a

bused it s d i scre tion by

ignor ing the a bu se and ne g le c t of

the wa rd . T he y re c ite so me sp e c if ic ins tanc e s o f a c ts the y

c on sid e r a

bu se
and ne g le c t. Th e pr ob a te c ourt

is v e ste d w ithbr oa d dis c re tio n in de te rm ini ngwh a t is in t

he be st i nte re st of the wa rd. Edd ins v . Es tat eof Sie v e rs , 789 S.W .2d 706, 707 (Tex. A pp.–Austin 1990, no w rit). The test for

abuse of discretion is not whether

in the opinion of the revie wing court the f acts pre sent an appr opriate c ase f

or the trial c ourt’s action, but whether the cour t acted w ithout refer ence to any g uiding r ules or princ iples. Beaum ont B ank, N.A. v. Bul ler , 806 S.W .2d 223, 2 2 6 (Tex. 1991); Downer v . Aquam arine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-42 (Tex

. 1985). The re viewing court is to consider the re cord a s a whole in a n abuse of discre tion analy sis. See Edd ins , 789 S.W .2d at 707. I f an a

ppellant re quests a par

tial repor ter’s recor d, she m ust include in the re quest a stateme nt of the issues to be pr esente d on appeal and will then be limited to those issues. T EX . R. A PP . P. 34.6(c) (1). I f the a

p p el lant complies with Rule 34.6(c)( 1), we must presume that the pa rtial repor ter’s r ecor d desig nated by the par ties constitutes the entire rec ord for purposes of r eviewingthe stat ed p o i n t s o r issues. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 4. 6( c )( 4) ; Ma so n v . O ur L ad y Sta r o f t he Se a Ca tho lic Chu rch , 154 S.W .3d 816, 819 (Tex. A pp.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 2005, no pet.). On the other ha nd, if an appellant appea ls with a par tial reporte r’s re cord but fa ils to comply with Rule 34.6(c)( 1), the5

appellate court must presume that t he omitted portions are rele vant and support the tr ial court’s judgme nt. See Mason , 154 S.W .3d at 819. Her e, bec ause the y

wer e unable to affor d to pay for the full rec ord, Appellants requested the court re porter to pr epar e only excerpts of the repor

ter’s rec ord and portions of the exhibit s to be filed in the appellate court. Appellants claim they complied wit h the rule’s require ment that they file a state me nt o f t

he iss ue s t o b e pr e se nte d o n a pp e a l. T he y

re fe r t o a do c ume nt e nti tle d “ Con te sta nts Pr op os e d St a te me nt o f P oin ts t o be Con sid e re d in F ind ing s of F a c t and Con c lus ion s of L aw. ” Th is do c ume nt wa s fi le d in the tr ia l c ourt , a dd re sse d to the “ Ho no ra

ble Judg e of Sa id C ourt .” Th e fi rs t para g raph ide ntifies the document a s “their ve rsion of finding s o f fa ct and conclusions of law per the cour t’s reque st at the final hea ring o n t h e Guar dianship of Luke F orre st Humphrey , an inc a pa c itate d p e rs on .” Th e do c ume nt a pp e ars to c on ta in c omp la int s a bo ut t he c a se , simil ar t o th os e in the ir a pp e llate br ie f. I t do e s n ot c on ta in r e qu e ste d f ind ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw. Th is is not the document envisioned by R u l e 3 4

. 6 (c). The Rule 34.6(c )(1) statement of issues to be prese nted on appe al is a s t at em en t , not argument, and is to be included in the r equest for the repor ter’s r ecor d that is sen t t o t h e co urt repor ter. T EX . R. A PP . P

. 3 4

. 6 ( c ) ( 1 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, A p p e l l an t s a

p p e a l w i t h a

p art i a l r e c o r d

b u th a v e n o tc o mp l i e d

w i t h R u l e 3 4

. 6 ( c ) ( 1 )

. C o n s e qu e n t l y, we must pres u m e t h at the omitted portions of the re cord a re r eleva nt and support the trial c ourt’s judgme nt. See Mason , 154 S.W .3d at 819. We overr ule Appellants’ issue f

our.
A T T ORNE Y A D L I TEM I n their fifth issue, Appe llants assert that Killoug h tried to be both an a dvocate and an a rm of the c ourt
. Th ey argue tha t “ [v]io la tio ns of

bo th t he law a nd the Con sti tut ion

a pp ly to t his particula r ca se. F undamental r ights guara nteed by the Constitut ion have be en violated by the lower
c ourt s and

thi s A d L ite m.” As the y pr ov ide no oth e r a

rgume nt o r d isc us sio n und e r thi s issu e , it is waived. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8. 1( h) ; Daniel , 190 S.W .3d at 189. We overr ule issue five. I n their issue six (a) , Appellants conte nd that Killough did not ef fec tively repr esent his client and his ac tions did not ref lect re asonable profe ssional judgment r eg ardin g t h e d evelopment of evidenc e of the qualifications and abilities of Humphrey as g uardian. They

asser t that Luke wa s denied due proce ss and ef fec tive assistance of counse l. Appellants do not state precisely the relief t hey believe the mselves entitled to due to the adT he not i ce of appeal f i l ed by Ap pel l ant s pre ceded t he Jul y 13, 200 7 order by about s i x w eek s . T he order 3
a sse ssin g c o sts is in the na tur e o f a m o d ifi c a tio n o f t h e M a y 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r in w h ic h the trial c o u rt tax e d c o sts a g a ins t A p p e llan ts. W e the re fo re tre a t t h e a p p e a l as fro m the J u ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 27. 3. 6 litem’s actions. I n their pra y er, t h ey as kthis court to take “a ppropriate disciplinary

action.” Appellants could have moved f or the a d litem’s removal in the trial cour t. See Coleson v. Bethan , 931 S.W .2d 7 0 6 , 7 1 2 (T ex. App.–Fort Worth 1996, no writ) (Any party may file a swor

n motion
c ha lle ng ingthe a tto rn e y

a d li te m’ s a

uth or ity to a c t on be ha lf of the c lie nt. ). Ho we ve r, Ap pe lla nts have not indicated wher e in the re cord the y prese nted this issue to the trial court. I n our re view of the re cord, w e we re unable to locate such a n argument or motion complaining that the attorney ad litem was providing ineffe ctive assistanc e to the war d and reque sting the tria l court to take a ny action to addre ss that complaint. Acc ording ly , this iss ue has not be en pre serve d. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3

. 1

. We
overr ule Appellants’ issue six(a).
A SSESSM EN T O F C OSTS I n their eighth issue, Appe llants contend that the trial c ourt err ed in assessingad litem fee s and expenses ag ainst them. We ag ree . The fina l sentence of t he trial court’s May 17, 2007 order appointing the perma

nent g uardia

n order s all costs taxed ag ainst Appellants, j ointly and severally

. About a we ek af ter that orde r wa s sig ne d, Ki llo ug h fil e d an a pp lic a tio n for

pa y me nt o f h is f

e e s and e xpe ns e s, le ss c re dit

fo r p ay me nts
re c e ive d, in t

he tot a l a mou

nt of $9 4, 85 6. 86

. He re qu e ste d pa y me nt by Smit

h County bu t of

fe re d to assig n any

rig ht he has to collect from Appellants to Smit h County . On J uly 13, 2007, the trial cour

t
or de re d Sm ithCounty

to p ay Ki llo ug h the $2 ,0 00 .0 0 de po sit fo r se c ur ity fo r c os ts p re vio us ly pa id into th e r e g is tr

y o f th e c o u rt. I t a ls o o r d e r e d Sm it h Co u n ty to p ay K il lo u g h a tt o r

n e y a d li te m f e es
an d e xp e n s e s i nt h e a m o u n to f $ 9 2 , 8 5 6

. 8 6 , “ w h i c h ar e h e r e b y t a xe d a s c o s t s a g a i n s tC o n t e s t an t s , Jo Ann B owsh ot a

nd Pa tr ic ia Pon do ff , jo int ly and se ve ra lly .” F ina lly , th e c ourt or de re d K ill ou g h to assig n to Smit h County all rig ht, title, and int ere st that he may have a g ainst Appellants ar ising fr om
or cr eate d by

the orde r. The portion of the rec ord filed in this court is silent as to the trial court’ s

3
rea sons for asse ssing c osts ag ainst Appellants. Section 665A of th e p ro b at e code provides that pay ment of a f

ee se t by the cour t as compensation to the attorney s appointed in a g uardia nship is to be taxed a s costs in the case . T EX .7

P R OB
. C ODE ANN . § 6 6 5 A ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 )

. I t f

u rt h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t i f t h e p r o p o s e d wa rd is unable to pay

for the attorney ’s s ervic es, t he county is responsible for the cost of those service s. Id

. T h ere fore , the trial cour

t erre d in assessing costs ag ainst Appellants. The por tion of the order pr ov idi ngthat K ill ou g h mu st a ssi g n to Smith Co un ty a ll r ig ht, tit le , a

nd int e re st h e may

have a g a ins t Appellants ar ising fr om that order is void. We sustain Appellants’ e ighth issue. I n th e ir s e v e n th an d n in th thr o u g h th ir te e n th is s u e s , A p p e ll an ts c o mp la in th a t th e y d id not
rec eive due proce ss reg arding the assessment of costs and they prese nt various ar g uments assailing the amount of c osts they

wer e orde red to pa

y . Due to our dispositi on of issue eig ht, we over rule a s moot issues seven and nine thr oug h thirteen.
D I S P OS I T I ON We m odify

t h e M ay1 7 , 2 0 0 7 o r d e r

b y de le ting

the portion taxi ng all costs ag ainst J oAnn B ow sh ot a

nd Pa tr ic ia Pon do ff . A s m odified , we af

fi rm t h e M ay

17, 2007 order

appointing perma nent g uardia

n. We m odify

t h e J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 o r d e r b y de le ting

the portion taxi ng costs ag ainst J oAnn B o w s h o tan d

P a t r i c i a P o n d o f f an d b y de le ting t h e po rt i o n o rd er i n g J

. S co t t Ki l l o u gh , P

. C

. t o as s i gn to Smi th County

all rig ht, title, and interest it may have a g ainst J oAnn B owshot and Patricia Pondoff

. As m odified , we af

fi rm the J uly 13, 2007 order authorizing pa y ment of attorne y

ad litem fee s and
e xpe ns e s. Al l pe nd ingmot ion s in

thi s c a us e , 1 2- 07 -0 02 25 -C V, are ov e rr ule d a s mo ot.

JA M ES T. WOR THEN Chief J ustice
Opinion delivere d Fe bruar y 18, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBL I SH)