## In t he Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fo rt Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00352

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 001187

- 1

Before Su d d erth, C.J.; Wall ach an d Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### W ALLY 

### Y AMMINE 

### , Appellant

V



### . N ICOLE 

### T AYLOR AND 

### R ICHARD 

### T AYLOR 

### , Appellees2 MEMORAND UM OPINION
In t he trial court, t he parties filed competing c laims , each arguing that the other
had breached a real estate contract

. 1 A f ter a bench trial, the trial court found in f a vor of Appellees Nicole and Richard Ta ylor

. 2 The court awarded t he Taylors $11, 667.32 in damages , plus at torney ’ s fe es of $ 9, 860

. Pro se Appe llant W a lly Yammine appeals, raising fiv e sufficienc y issues , 3 all of whic h he has w aived

. A s the appellant, Ya mm ine bears the burden to bring forward a sufficient
record to show th e error co mmitted by the trial court. Re migio v. Armenta , No. 02

- 21

- 00298

- CV, 2022 WL 2526943, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth July 7, 2022, no pet.) (m em. o p.)

. But here, Yammine d id not re quest or make payment arrangements for a reporter ’ s record

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(b), 37.3 (c)

. Alt hough we w arned Yam mine
that his f ailure to bring forward a repo rter ’ s record would limit his ap peal to is sues that do not require a reporter ’ s record , s ee Tex. R. App. P. 37.3( c ), and althoug h we

1 Appellant Wall y Yam mine sued Appellees Nico le an d Richard Ta ylor seeking
s pe cific performance of a r eal estate contract
. The Taylors counterclai med for br each all eging that Yammine had failed to perform , a nd they also sought a declaratory judgment that the lis pen dens filed by Yammi n e was invalid

.

2 T he trial cour t found that Yammine had failed to physically appear at closing, th at he ha d failed t o tender the money called for by the contract , and that the T aylors had prope rly terminate d the contract
.

3 Although in his brief Yammine doe s not specify the pr ecise legal error or errors the trial court allege dly committed , he raises factual o bjections to five trial court findings , so we liberally construe his appellate issues as ch allenges to t he sufficiency of the evidence to support the fi n dings

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38

. 9

.3

granted Yamm ine an extension of time to make arr an gements for the re po rt er ’ s record, he still failed to obtain one. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(b)

. A ccordingly, we

n otified Yammine that his appeal would b e limited to issues that do not require a
reporter ’ s record for resolution

. See Tex. R. App. P . 37.3 (c)

. When , as here, there is no reporte r ’ s record , “ w e must presume that any evidence presented to the trial court was sufficient to support the judgmen t. ” Remig io , 2022 WL 2526943, at *2 ; Duke v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc ’ y, FSB , No . 02

- 19

- 00110

- CV, 2019 WL 6768124, at * 3

– 4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 12, 2019, no pet.) (mem. o p.) (similar)

. I n other words, Yammine waived any challenges to the sufficiency of t he e vi denc e by failing to make arrangements fo r a rep orter ’ s record

. S ee Duk e , 2019 WL 6768124, at *4 (holding that appellant ’s fa ilure to obtain a
reporter ’s record had wa ived argument that evi dence required findings in her favor ).
Ye t the five issues Y a mmi ne raises on appeal all challenge the sufficienc y of the
eviden ce . 4 He a lleg es that the trial court erred by (1) fin ding that he faile d to appea r at

4 The statement of facts section in Yammine ’ s brief include s a pletho ra of other allegations regarding the trial court proce edin gs, including that “ the Judge and the [ Taylor s ’ ] attorney conspired together, ” that the judge and the Taylors “ c o mmitted constructive fraud” by not correcting alleged err ors in the property ’ s legal des cription , that t he Taylor s ’ attorney interfered with Ya mmine ’ s contract with the Taylors , that Yammine never received notic e of the Taylors ’ counter c laims

— cont rary to t he document ’ s certificate of service

— and that the j udgment contains an incorrect appearance date , among other thi ngs. Although Yammine raised many of these allegations in the unverified motion to va cate the judgment that he filed w ith t he trial court , he has not listed these as separat e issue s in his br ief

. Becau se these allegations either require a reporter ’ s record for res olution or require new evidence, t o the extent that Yammine ’ s brief could be liberally construed to have ra ised t h e laundry li st of4

closing (2) findin g tha t the Taylors proper ly terminated the con tract , (3) finding that the Tayl ors appear ed at closing an d performed all of their obligations under the

contract , (4) awarding the Taylors damages when they “ refused t o coopera te with
cl osing , ” and (5) awarding the T a ylors attorney ’ s fees without adequate factual
support for those fees

. These ar e all chall enges to factual determinations based on the evidence presented at trial , and we must pres ume that the absen t reporter ’ s record
contains s ufficient evidence to support th e challenged factfindings

. See Remigi o , 2 022 WL 2526943, at * 2

. Therefore , Y ammine has waived al l of his appellate issues

. B e cause Yammine has waived his complaint s , we affirm the tr ial court ’ s judgment. 5 See Tex . R. App. P. 43.2(a)

.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudde rth Chief Justic e

Delivered: December 8, 2022

iss ues mentioned in hi s statemen t of facts , he has waived them

. See Wysinger v. Jord a n , No. 05

- 20

- 00713

- CV, 2022 WL 263155, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Jan. 28, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Du k e , 2019 WL 6768124, at *4

.

5 Having resolved t he m e rits of the appeal, a ll pending motions are de nied as moot
.