1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 3 2 - CV
K E NNE T H K OHL E R AP P E L L ANT V . M & M TRU C K C O N V ERSI O N S A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 2 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- Thi s i s an app ea l f r om a j udgm ent aw ar di ng dam age s t o a pp el l ant K enneth Koh l eron hi s br each ofcont r actand frau d cl ai m s agai nstappel l ee M& M T r u c kC o n v e r s i o n s . We a f f i r m. M & M T r u c kC o n v e r s io n s (M & M ) c o n t r a c t e d w it h K e n n e t h K o h le rt o in s t a ll a w heel chai rl i f tand r el at ed hyd r aul i c equi pm ent on a hor se t r uck. Ko hl erl at er2 ... Kohl eral l ege d t hathe i ncu r r ed ac t ual da m age s i n t he am ountof

$ 2 0 ,3 3 3 .0 0 i n ad d i ti o n to e x e m p l a ry d a m a g e s, atto rne y ’s fee s, an d i n tere st. 2 s u e d M & M f o rf r a u d a n d b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t a lle g in g t h a t M & M f a ile d t o p a yh im f orhi s w or k. Af t era ben ch tr i al , i n w hi ch no r ec or d w as m ade oft he pr oc e e di ng s , t he t r i a l c ou rtr e nd e r e d j ud gm e nti n Koh l e r ’ s f a vo rf or$6, 500. 00 i n dam age s. N o f i ndi ngs off ac torco ncl us i ons ofl aw w er e m ade orr equ es t ed. S ubsequ ent l y, K ohl er m oved f or a new t r i al on t he gr oun ds t hatdam ages a w a r d e d w e r e m a n if e s t lyt o o s m a ll 2 a n d th a t h e w a s i m p ro p e rl y d e n i e d a c o u rt r epo rt er at t r i al . A t t he hea r i ng on t he m ot i on, Kohl ert es t i f i ed t o t he am ount o f h i s a l l e g e d d a m a g e s b u t o ffe re d n o te s ti m o n yo r o th e r e v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt hi s al l ega t i on t hathe ha d be en i m pr ope r l y de ni ed a c ourtr epo rt eratt r i al . The t r i al co urtde ni ed Kohl er ’ s m ot i on f orne w t r i al an d t hi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I. A n a ly s is I n one i ss ue, Kohl er con t end s t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o a n ew t r i al be ca us e t he am ountofdam age s aw ar ded i s aga i ns tt he gr ea tw ei ghtan d pr epo nde r anc e o f t he evi dence and because t he t r i al co ur terr oneo usl y deni ed hi m a cour tr epor t er a tt r ia l.3 ... Reyes v. Credit Bas ed A ss et Servi ci ng & S ec ur

iti zati on , 190 S. W . 3d 7 3 6 , 7 4 0 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); see Tex . R . A pp. P. 13 . 1( a) ( st at i ng t hatt he of f i ci al co urtr epo rt erm us t , “ unl es s exc us ed by a gr ee m entof th e p a rti e s , a tte n d c o u rt s e s s i o n s a n d m a k e a fu l l re c o rd o f th e p ro c e e d i n g s ” ).

4 ... T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a ); see Reyes , 19 0 S. W . 3d at 74 0 ( noti ng t hat th e p res e rva ti o n req u i rem e n t “c o m p o rt s w i th th e g e n e ral rules th a t a n ap p e l l a te c o u rt m a yc o n s i d e r a c a s e b a s e d o n l y u p o n th e c l e rk ’s a n d /o r re p o rte r’s re c o rd f ile d w h ic h m u s ts h o w t h e c o m p la in tw a s m a d e t o t h e t r ia l c o u rtb ya t im e ly re q u e s t, o b j e c ti o n , o r m o ti o n ” ).

5 ... S e eBa rne tt v. S tate , 1 6 1 S .W .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 2 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 5 ), a ff'd, 1 8 9 S .W .3 d 2 7 2 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o ld in g t h a tt im e ly ob j e ct i on i s r equi r ed “t o al l ow t he t r i al cour tt o have t he opp or t uni t y t o m ake a det er m i nat i on and r ul i ng” and “ pr oceed w i t h t he t r i al und er t h e p r oper pr ocedu r al and subst ant i ve m anner s, as appr opr i at el y cor r ect ed by t he t r i al c o u rt” ); Hoxi

eI mpl em ent Co. v. Ba ker, 65 S. W . 3d 140, 145 ( Tex. A pp. — A m ar i l l o 2 00 1, pet . deni ed) ( concl udi ng t hat appel l at e r ul e 33 . 1 r equi r es “ o b j e c ti o n s to a tri a l c o u rt’s p ro p o s e d c o n d u c t b e u rg e d i n a ti m e l ym a n n e r” ). 3 A . Lack ofa C ourtRep ort eratTr i al U n l e s s th e p a rti e s e x p re s s l yw a i v e th e i r ri g h t to a r e c o rd , th e c o u rt re p o rte r’s fa i l u re to tra n s c ri b e th e p ro c e e d i n g s c o n s ti tu te s e rro r. 3 To pr es er ve s u c h e r r o rf o ra p p e a l, h o w e v e r , t h e c o m p la in in g p a rt yh a s t h e b u r d e n o ft im e ly obj ecti n g to th e cour tr epor t er ’ s f ai l ur e t o r ecor d t he pr oceedi ngs. 4 T o b e t i m el y, an obj ect i on m ustbe m ade as soon as i t s basi s becom es appar ent , so t hat t he t r i a l c ou rt ha s t he op po rt un i t y t o r ul e on t he m a t t e r a nd cor r ect pos si bl e e r r orbe f or e p r oce edi ng. 5 Ther e i s no r ec or d show i ng t hatK ohl err equ es t ed a c ourtr epo rt erorm ade an obj ect i on t o t he absence of a cour t r epor t er dur i ng t r i al . H e fi rst ob j ect ed6 ... See St. Paul Sur pl usLi nesI ns . Co. v. D al
- Worth TankCo. , 974 S .W .2 d 5 1 , 5 3 ( T e x . 1 9 9 8 ) ( h o ld in g t h a tra is in g o b je c t io n f o rf ir s tt im e in m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l i s n o t ti m e l yi f c o m p l a i n t c o u l d h a v e b e e n u rg e d e a rl i e r).

7 ... Ph a ro v. Ch a m b ers C o un ty , 9 2 2 S .W .2 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 8 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ). 8 ... S ee Bryant v. United Shortl i ne I nc. A ssurance S ervs. , 972 S. W . 2d 26, 3 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); I

n re Sp i egel, 6 S. W . 3d 643, 646 ( Te x. App . — Am a r i l l o 1999, n o p e t.). 4 m or e t han f ourm o n th s af t ert r i al i n hi s m ot i on f ornew t r i al . W e hol d t hat K ohl er ’ s obj ect i on w as nott i m el y because i tw as not r ai sed w hen er r orbecam e a p p a r e n ta n d d i d n o ta f f o r d t h e t r ia l c o u rtt h e o p p o rt u n it yt o c o r r e c tp o s s ib le e r r o rb e f o r e p r o c e e d in g w it h t h e t r ia l. 6 Ther ef or e, Kohl erha s f ai l ed t o pr es er ve er r orf orappeal and w e over r ul e t hi s subi ssue. B. A m oun tofD am ages A w ar ded K o h le rc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e d a m a g e s a w a r d is m a n if e s t l y t o o s m a ll a n d is agai nstt he gr eatw ei ght and pr epon der ance oft he evi dence. I n a bench tr i al
w h e re n o fi n d i n g s o f fa c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a re fi l e d , t h e t ri a l c o u rt’s j udg m ent i m pl i es al l f i ndi ngs of f act necessar y t o suppo rti t. 7 Al so , i n t he abs enc e o fa r epo rt er ’ s r ec or d, w e i ndul ge eve r y pr esum pt i on i n f avo roft he t r i al cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs. 8 B e c a u s e th e re i s n o re p o rte r’s re c o rd o f th e tri a l , w e9 ... See, e. g. , Patr i ckv. W

atso n , No. 02- 07- 00075

- CV , 2008 W L 2 8 5 4 6 5 6 , a t * 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth J u l y2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (h o ld in g t h a tle g a l a n d f a c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c yc o m p la in t s m u s tb e o v e r r u le d in a b s e n c e o f re p o rte r’s re c o rd o f tri a l ). 5 m ustpr esum e t hatt he evi dence pr esent ed att r i a l sup por t s t he dam ages aw ar d. 9 A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e t hi s subi ssue.6 I I . C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d K o h l e r’s s o l e i s s u e o n a p p e a l , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t21, 2009