Affirmed and Memorandum Majority and Memorandum Concurring 

Opinions filed May 7, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00751-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 312th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1999-37893 

M E M O R A N D U M C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N 

As to each of his appellate complaints, appellant Danny Lee McKee had to 

preserve error in the trial court. Because he did not do so, this court should affirm 

the trial court’s final order without addressing the merits of those complaints.

The Supreme Court of Texas has recognized the strong policy supporting 

Texas’s longstanding preservation-of-error requirement.1 A timely and specific 

complaint alerts the trial court and the adversary to the purported error, giving both 

 

1

See Mansions in the Forest, L.P. v. Montgomery County, 365 S.W.3d 314, 317 (Tex. 2012) (per 

curiam). 
2

a chance to remedy the problem and thus avert the need to raise the issue on appeal.2 

Requiring error preservation foils unfairness, gives deference to the trial court, and 

encourages the proper administration of justice by having the parties and the trial 

court tackle the issues before they reach the court of appeals.3 In this way, the errorpreservation rule spurs efficiency, prevents unnecessary expense, and safeguards 

judicial resources.4

 It also deters the gamesmanship that sometimes accompanies 

the exceptions to the error-preservation requirement.5 For these and other reasons, 

subject to a narrow exception, Texas appellate courtsin civil appeals are to step away 

from reviewing non-jurisdictional complaints raised for the first time on appeal.6

Challenging the trial court’s final order of June 22, 2017, McKee presents two 

complaints in this appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by issuing this 

order because the parties already have litigated “the underlying relief” ending in a 

final judgment denying relief; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in this order 

by identifying payments and attorney’s fees as child support and by authorizing 

wage withholding based on a finding that the obligation underlying the arrearages is 

a child-support obligation. McKee does not assert any complaint regarding the legal 

or factual sufficiency of the evidence; indeed, he concedes that no record was made 

of the evidentiary hearing that resulted in the trial court’s final order. Rather than 

relying on any reporter’s record, McKee argues that he can show reversible error 

based only on the clerk’s record. 

McKee’s appellate complaints do not fall within the tight constraints of the 

 

2

See id. 

3

See id. 

4

See id. 

5

See id. 

6

See id. 
3

fundamental-error doctrine.

7

 Therefore, even presuming that the absence of a 

reporter’s record from the evidentiary hearing would not preclude McKee from 

showing reversible error, McKee still had to preserve his complaints for appellate 

review.8 Yet, McKee did not raise either of his appellate complaints in the trial 

court.9

 He has not shown that he gave either the trial court or his adversary a chance 

to address these matters below. Nor has McKee offered this court any reason he 

should be excused from the preservation-of-error requirement and allowed to present 

these issues for the first time on appeal.

Because McKee failed to preserve error, this court cannot reverse the trial 

court’s final order based on either of his appellate complaints.

10 Therefore, in 

keeping with binding precedent, this court should affirm the trial court’s order 

without addressing the merits of McKee’s appellate complaints. Because the 

majority does not do so, I respectfully decline to join the majority opinion. But, 

given McKee’s failure to preserve error, he cannot prevail in any event, so I concur 

in this court’s judgment.

 

 /s/ Kem Thompson Frost

 Chief Justice 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Zimmerer and Hassan (Hassan, J., 

majority).

 

7

See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350–52 (Tex. 2003).

8

See In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex. 2003). 

9

See Laguan v. U.S.Bank Trust, N.A., No. 14-14-00577-CV, 2016 WL 750172, at *3–4 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 25, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). McKee did not raise either 

complaint in his motion for new trial.

10 See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711; In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350–

52; Laguan, 2016 WL 750172, at *3–4.