AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 19, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 01512
- CV ESMERALDA ESTEVEZ , Appellant V. LEADER FINANCIAL SER VICES, A DIVISION OF AMERICAN NATIONAL BA NK,

CLEVELAND, OHIO; LOA NCARE, A DIVISION OF FNF SERVICING , INC.; AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS , INC. , Appellees On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 12
- 01960 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Evans, and O’Neill 1 Opinion by Justice O’Neill Appellant Esmerelda Estevez filed her Original Petition in this case alleging violations of the Debt Collection Act, breach of contr act, wrongful foreclosure, and wrongful eviction. Her claims centered on alleged defects in the special warranty deed supporting the foreclosure and her eviction from her residence. Estevez did not effect service of citation on any of the three defendant s , but LoanCare , a Division of FNF Servicing , Inc. (LoanCare) waived service and answered the suit. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment ; both motions were denied by the trial court. The trial court then heard the case on the merits . The final judgment ordered that Estevez take nothing by her claims against LoanCare and dismiss ed those claims

1 The Honorable Michael J. O’Neill, Justice, Court of Appeals. Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Retired, sitting by assignment.– 2

– with prejudice . The judgment also dismiss ed without prejudice Estevez’s claims against the defendants that were not served. Estevez appeals the po rtion of the judgment dismissing her claims against LoanCare . W e affirm

. Estevez filed her notice of appeal and arranged for the timely filing of the clerk’s record in this Court. She failed, however, to request transcription of the reporter’s record

. W hen she did not respond to th is Court ’s directive to file written verification of her arrangements to have the record transcribed, we ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Accordingly, we may consider and decide only those issues that do not require a reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 37.3(c). In her first and second issues, Estevez challenges the trial court’s resolution of issues tried in the bench trial. Estevez contends the tr ial court erred when it entered the take

- nothing judgment and dismissed her claims because (1) she had prove d to the trial court that the special warranty deed on which LoanCare relied to claim possession was unsupported by a recorded power of attorney, an d (2) she had prove d to the trial court that one or more instruments in the chain of title preceding th at same special warranty deed w ere executed by a person acting without proper capacity. These issues turn on the proof Estevez contends she offered conc erning the invalidity of the special warranty deed. However, in the absence of a reporter ’ s record, we

cannot evaluate any proof she offered. Instead, w e must presume the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the trial court ’ s final judgm ent. See Bryant v. United Shortline Inc.
Assurance Serv s . N.A. , 972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998) (“We indulge every presumpt ion in favor of the trial court’ s findings in the absence of a statement of facts.”) ; Willms v. Americas Tire
Co. , 190 S.W.3d 796, 80 3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006 , pet. denied) (“[W] hen an appe llant fails to bring a reporter’ s record, an appellate court must presume the evidence presented was sufficient– 3

– to support the trial court ’ s order. ”). Without a reporter’s record, Estevez cannot establish that she proved any defect in the special warranty deed. We overrule her first and second issues. In her third issue, Estevez contends the trial court err oneously denied her motion for partial summary judgment. The general rule is that an order overruling a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable. Ackermann v. Vordenbaum , 403 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. 1966). When the denial of a motion for summary judgment is followed by a trial on the m erits

— as was the case here

— the denial does not finally decide any issue pending before the trial court, and so it presents nothing for our review. See Anderton v. Schindler , 154 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, no pet.). Because the denial of Este vez’s partial motion for summary judgment is not appealable , w e overrule her third issue.
We have resolved each of Estevez’s issues against her. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

131512F.P05 /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE, ASSIG NED– 4

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ESMERALDA ESTEVEZ, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 01512

- CV V. LEADER FINANCIAL SERVICES, A DIVISION OF AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, CLEVELAND, OHIO; LOANCARE , A DIVISION OF FNF SERVICING, INC.; AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellees On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- 01960. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill. Justices Myers and Evans participating.

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

. It is ORDERED that appellees LEADER FINANCIAL SERVICES, A DIVISION OF AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, CLEVELAND, OHIO; LOANCARE , A DIVISION OF FNF SERVICING, INC.; AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant ESMERALDA ESTEVEZ.
Judgment entered this 19th day of February, 2015.