Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 31, 2023

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-01118-CV

RODERICK MANGUM, Appellant

V.

SITONIA MANGUM, Appellee

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-18124

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

The parties (Roderick and Sitonia Mangum) were married then sought a 

divorce. After a bench trial concerning the division of the marital estate, the court 

signed a final decree of divorce on July 20, 2022 and awarded sixty percent of their 

home to appellee Sitonia and forty percent to appellant Roderick. In three issues, 

Roderick timely challenges (1) the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of 

law, (2) the trial court’s ruling denying him the opportunity to testify, and (3) the 

trial court’s disproportionate award to Sitonia. We affirm in this memorandum 

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
–2–

In his first issue, Roderick challenges the trial court’s failure to file findings 

of fact and conclusions of law despite his timely request and a subsequent notice of 

late findings of fact. Although his original request was timely filed, the notice of late 

findings was filed more than 30 days later and did not preserve this issue for 

appellate review. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296–297; Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co., Inc. 

v. Zavala County, 682 S.W.2d 254, 255–56 (Tex. 1984); In re Guthrie, 45 S.W.3d

719, 722 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We overrule Roderick’s first issue.

In his second issue, Roderick challenges the trial court’s ruling that denied 

him the opportunity to testify. However, Roderick was not present in the courtroom 

(or even the county) at the time of trial and his counsel did not object to the court’s 

ruling; instead, his counsel offered Roderick’s testimony via telephone to rebut 

Sitonia’s allegations of cruelty. The absence of an objection to the trial court’s ruling 

means Roderick has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Garcia v. Semler, 663 S.W.3d 270, 278 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, 

no pet.). We overrule Roderick’s second issue. 

In his third issue, Roderick challenges the trial court’s apportionment of the 

marital property. When there are no findings of fact despite a timely request, we 

presume that a trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment. 

See Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex. 2017) (citing BMC

Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002)). A party may 

rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the record evidence does not support a 
–3–

presumed finding. Id. As the party complaining of the division of community 

property, Roderick bore the burden of “showing from the evidence in the record that 

the trial court’s division of the community estate was so unjust and unfair as to 

constitute an abuse of discretion.” Slicker v. Slicker, 464 S.W.3d 850, 858 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citing In re Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 

373, 382–83 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)). 

Roderick’s appellate brief on this point only contains two citations to the 

record; the first shows Sitonia requested a disproportionate share of the marital estate 

and the second shows the parties stipulated Sitonia’s credit was so poor she could 

not qualify for a mortgage on the home. When viewed separately or collectively, this 

sparse evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the trial court 

properly exercised its discretion when dividing the marital assets. See Murff v. Murff,

615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981). We overrule his third issue. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

221118f.p05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RODERICK MANGUM, Appellant

No. 05-22-01118-CV V.

SITONIA MANGUM, Appellee

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-18124.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Smith and Kennedy 

participating.

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

court is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee SITONIA MANGUM recover her costs of 

this appeal from appellant RODERICK MANGUM.

Judgment entered this 31st day of October 2023.