COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00340-CV

KEIWUAN MITCHELL AND

COQUESSA MITCHELL

APPELLANTS

V.

MARY LOUISE NEWTON APPELLEE 

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-004310-1

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellee Mary Louise Newton leased a residence to pro se Appellants 

Keiwuan Mitchell and Coquessa Mitchell. In August 2014, Newton sued 

Appellants in county court for damages that they had allegedly caused to the

residence. The trial court subsequently conducted a bench trial and signed a 

final judgment in favor of Newton, finding that Appellants had damaged her 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

property and awarding her judgment against Appellants in the amount of 

$12,000, plus $3,750 for attorney’s fees. The judgment expressly states that the 

trial court considered the testimony, the exhibits, and the credibility of the 

witnesses. Appellants did not request, nor did the trial court enter, any findings 

of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellants’ first issue states that the trial court erred by excluding “critical 

evidence,” but the body of the argument, liberally construed, raises a legal 

sufficiency complaint—that Newton presented no evidence that Appellants

negligently damaged the residence and that she therefore improperly charged 

Appellants for the cost to repair what they contend was otherwise normal wear 

and tear on the residence. Similarly, Appellants argue in their second issue that 

the evidence is factually insufficient to support the judgment because it would be 

“unjust and a travesty” to make them cover the costs that Newton incurred 

repairing or remodeling the residence.

Appellants requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, 

but they did not ask that the proceedings from the bench trial, if any, be included 

in the record. The reporter’s record contains only the transcript of the brief 

hearing on Appellants’ motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.

Appellants bore the burden to bring forward a record that enables this 

court to determine whether reversal is required. See Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424 

S.W.3d 722, 727 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). Issues depending on the 

state of the evidence—like each of Appellants’ issues here—cannot be reviewed 
3

without a complete record, including the reporter’s record. See id. Without a 

reporter’s record of the bench trial upon which to review Appellants’ evidentiarybased arguments, we must presume that the evidence supports the trial court’s 

judgment. See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (“This court 

has held that when an appellant complains of the factual or legal sufficiency of 

the evidence, the appellant’s burden to show that the judgment is erroneous 

cannot be discharged in the absence of a complete or an agreed statement of 

facts.” (footnote omitted)); Petterson v. JGMS Invs. LLC, No. 05-15-01286-CV, 

2016 WL 6124134, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 20, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(“Without a record of the bench trial, we must assume the ‘evidence’ admitted at 

the trial was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.”); Emesowum v. 

Morgan, No. 14-13-00397-CV, 2014 WL 3587385, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] July 22, 2014, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (holding similarly).

Accordingly, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the 

trial court’s judgment.2 We overrule Appellants’ two issues and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

 

2

Insofar as Appellants do contend in their first issue that the trial court 

erroneously excluded certain evidence, in the absence of a reporter’s record, we 

are unable to review the circumstances surrounding its exclusion, including the 

nature of the evidence, the reason for its exclusion, whether Appellants made an 

offer of proof, and whether the exclusion, if erroneous, was harmful. See 

Fletcher Aviation, Inc. v. Booher, No. 14-04-00712-CV, 2005 WL 1242395, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 26, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reasoning 

similarly).
4

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 1, 2016