NO. 07-06 -031 4-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B AU GU ST 27, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MATTER OF THE MA RR IAGE OF PEGG Y C OLLIN S AN D RI CKYLEE TIPTON

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 71, 990- D; H ON ORABLE DO N EM ER SON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ap p e lla n t Rick y T ip to n , p ro ce e d in g pro se , app eals f rom th e f inal de cree of div orce term inatin g his ma rriag e w ith ap pellee Peggy Collins. Th ro u gh his fo ur point s of error, Tipton co ntends that : (1 ) the t ri al cour t er re d by

fail ing to noti fy him that the t ri al date had b e e n se t o n May 2 3 , 20 0 6 ; (2) th e tr ia l co u rt a b u se d it s dis cre ti o n b y fa ili n g to ac kn o wled ge and act on moti ons pla ced before i t; (3 ) the t ri al cour t er re d in enter ing a de fault j udg ment on Ma y 23, 2 006; and ( 4) the tr ial co urt er re d bec ause there w as no menti on of communi ty proper ty i n the propose d medi ati on on Fi nal D iv orce Dec re e tha t w as p ro n ounce d and ren de red o n M ay

2 3, 2 00 6. W e affi r m.At all ti mes pe rt ine nt t o the se proceed ing s, Tipton w as inc arcerated in the Tex as 1 Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justi ce, at a uni t i n F ort St ockton, Tex as. H e al so act ed pro se at trial. 2 Back g ro und Col li ns and Tipton w ere mar ri ed on Oct ober 8, 2003 an d c eased to li v e tog ether as husb and and w ife in Februa ry 200 5. Collin s f iled a pe tition for div orce a year later, requesting the trial cou rt to div ide th e com mu nity esta te an d alleging she o wn e d certain separate p ro per

ty

. She req uest ed that the tr ial cour t c onfir m thatse parate p ro per ty as her separate p ro per

ty and est ate. She further alle g ed that the v alu e of the mari tal es tate w as more than z ero butl ess than $50, 000. T ipton f iled an orig inal an sw er. In his answer, he alleged th a t w hile Collins did 1 ind e e d o wn separat e real proper ty , he had s ig nific antl y enhanc ed th e proper

ty dur ing marr iag e. H e as ser

ted the v alu e of

the enhanc ements w as $40,000 and re q uest ed th at t he tr ial co urt di v ide the monetar y v alu e of thi s e nhanc ement w it h oth er co mmunity

property as the c our

t dee med j ustand proper . Tipton di d notas ser t any proper ty as hi s s eparate proper ty and did not ass ert t he v alu e of the enti re co mmunity es tate. Thereafter , Tipton f il ed sev eral pl eadi ng s, in cl udi ng his Req uestto Cou rtR epor ter to M ake a F ull R ecord and Preser v e Al l No te s, a N o ti ce of Moti on and Mo ti on for Temporar

y Inj unct ion , a R eq uest

for H ear ing and Appearance by Telep hone on M oti on for T e m p o ra ry In ju n ct io n , a Mot io n fo r Ap p e a ra n ce by T e le p h o n e atFin a l Divo rce He a rin g, and a Mo ti on to R esc hedul e F ina l Di v orce Hea ri ng and Ins tr uctPar ti es to P re pare aTex . R . C iv . P. 245. 2 3 W ritten Agreem ent . Th e record doe s n ot ref lect tha t the t rial cou rt acted on an y of these pl ea di ng s o r

t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt w as e v er ma de a w are of t he m. On M ay 23, 2006, the tr ial courtgranted the div orce and, bya f ina l decree of di v or ce, confir med so me 127 a cres of real proper ty and improv ements as Coll ins ’ separate p ro per ty and ot her

real proper

ty as Tipt on’ s s eparat e proper ty . The t ri al cour

t al so made v ar iou s other aw ards to ea ch par

ty

. The tr ial co urt l ater

ex ecut ed a Fi nal Decree of D iv orce Nun c Pro Tunc, co rrect ing er ro rs i n the or ig ina l final dec re e. Ti pton ti mely appeal ed. Ana ly sis Not ic e of Hea ri

ng In T ipton ’s first poin t of error on ap pea l, he asse rts the trial court failed to notif y him o f t h e h e a ri n g d a t e se tfo r M a y 2 3 , 2 0 0 6

. Ho we ve r, a s C o l l i n s p o in t s o u t , T ip t o n ’s o wn Mo ti o n t o R esc hedul e F ina l Di v orce Hea ri ng and Ins tr uctPar ti es to P re pare a W ri tten Ag re ement de notes hi s a w areness of th e h ear ing date

. Indeed, he s tates “ Res pondent re cei v ed not ic e of thi s d ate t hroug h a b ri ef lett er from c o u n se l, p rior

to the fai led M ay

4, 2006 t ele phone c all .” C onseq uentl y , Ti pton had not ic e of the hear ing date pr ior to Ma y 4, 2006. It ma y be, howev er, tha t T ipton ’s true comp laint i s he w as notprovi ded notice at least 45 d ays prior to the hea ring as required by Rule of Civ il Procedu re 245

. The record before 2 us do es no t ma ke clear exactly w hen Tipt on rece iv ed n otice; w e kno w only tha t the record4

indicat es tha t app ellee’s cou nsel sent not ice to him on Ap ril 6, 20 06 a nd h e received not ice someti me before Ma y

4, 2006. In any

ev ent, he di d not ti mely and s peci fical ly obj ecton t he basi s o f ins uff ic ien cy

of notic e under Rul e 245 as req uired. See S tate Far mF ir e & Cas ualty Co. v. Pr ic e, 845 S.W .2d 4 27, 4 32 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1 9 9 2 , w ri t di sm’ d by ag re ement) (s tati ng th a t b y “f a ili ng to ti mely and spec ific all y

obj ectto the first setti ng on t he bas is of ins uff ic ien cy o f

n o ti ce under

r ule 245, Sta te F ar m fail ed to preser v e any er ro r for our re v iew ”)

. As Col li ns notes , Ti pton’ s req uestst ated his aw areness of the d ate o f the hear ing and as ked the t ri a l court to resc hedul e. He nev er obj ect ed to the suffici ency or the time liness of

the not ice buto nly asked t he court to resche dule t he f inal he aring date u ntil after the t ri a l co urt had r ule d on his moti on for tel ephoni c a ppearance. N o appel lat e compl ain t abo ut t he s uff ic ien cy or ti meli ness of his noti ce of the tr ial d a te ha s b een prese rv ed for our rev iew . Te x . R. App. P. 33. 1. W e overrule Tipt on’s f irst point of error. Tipton ’ s Motions Be fore th e Trial Court In his seco nd p o in to f

e rror, T ipton asserts the trial court erred by failing to rule ex pli ci tl y on a number

of ple adi ng s req uest ing ac ti on by the tr ial cour

t. Col li ns arg ues that Tipton fail ed to t ake any st eps to br ing any

of thes e req uest s t o the att enti on of the tr ial cour t and thus , i t w as not a n abus e of di sc re ti on for the t ri al cour t t o fail to tak e ac ti on. W e do not fin d i n the record any i ndi cat ion thatTipt on obj ect ed or other w is e rais ed this po int be fore the trial court. To preserve a com plaint for app ellate rev iew , a pa rty must present a ti mely obj ect ion to the tr ial cour t, sta te the s peci fic g ro unds for th e obj ect ion , and o b t a in a ru li n g. L i k e wi s e , if t h e co u rtre f u s e d t o ru le , t h e co m p la in in g p a rt y m u s th a ve5

obje cted to the ref usal. T ex. R. App

. P. 33. 1(a). T here fore, T ipton h as no t preserved his com plaintfor app eal an d w e overrule his second pointof error. Tex. R. App . P. 33 .1(a). Entr y o f D efault J udgm ent Via his third po int of

e rror, T ipton co nte nds the t rial cou rt e rred in ente ring a de fault judgme nt on May

23, 20 06. Colli ns corr e c t ly p o in ts outthatpursua nt to Rule of Civ il Proced ure 32 4, on e mu st set forth a p oint in a m otion for new trial challenging the failure to set asi de a judg ment by default

. Tex . R . C iv . P. 324; Massey v. Colum bia State Ba nk, 35 S. W .3d 6 97, 6 99 ( Tex .App. –Hou st o n [1 D is t.] 2001, pet. deni ed)

. Beca use Tipton st fa il e d t o f il e a Mo t io n fo r Ne w T ri a l, h e h a s fa il e d t o p re s e rve h is c o m p la in t fo r ou r r e vie w. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1. How ev er , Ti pton’ s a ppeal ca n al so be reg arded as a c hal len g e to the fact ual suffici ency

of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing the t ri al cour t’ s d efault jud g ment. In a c ase tr ied to the cour t, the appeal ing par

ty need not file a moti on for new tr ial to preser

v e l eg al or

factual suffici ency

poi nts on a ppeal

. See T ex. R . Civ . P. 32 4(a), (b); In re Marri age of Parker, 20 S.W .3d 8 12, 8 16 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2000, no pet .) ; O ’ F a r r i l l A v i la v . G o n za lez , 248 (Te x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 19 98, pet. den ied). Underly ing Tipto n’s com plaint s on ap pea l is his co ntent ion thatbec ause he w as unabl e to par ti ci pate in the d iv orce proceed ing s, he w as notable to bring forth evidence conce rning the divi sion of the m arital prop erty or evi den ce to sup port his claim s regarding his ent itlem entto reimb ursem ent . Th us, ap pellan t argues, the c our t c onsi dered onl y

C oll ins ’ ev ide nce in re achi ng i ts jud g ment a n d i n doi ng so , re ndered a jud g ment bas ed on ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce.6

On t he record before us , w e canno t find the ev ide nce ins uff ic ien t to s uppor t t he tr ial cour t’ s j udg ment. Tri al cour ts hav e w ide di sc re ti on i n maki ng a j ust a n d r igh t di v is ion of ma rital prope rty . Te x . Fam . Code Ann. § 7.00 1 (Verno n 20 06). App ellate co u rt s must ind ulg e ev er

y reason abl e presu m p ti on i n fav or of the t ri al cour

t’ s p ro per

ex erci se of dis creti on i n di v idi ng m ar it al proper ty

. Mu rf f v . Mur ff, 615 S.W .2d 6 96, 6 98 ( Tex . 198 1) ; In reM ar ri age of H um ble , No. 07-06 -0 201- CV , 2008 W L 55111 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo, Ja n. 4, 2008, no pet .) ( mem. op.)

. W hen an appel lan t c hal len g es the t ri al co urt’ s o rd er on l eg al or factu al suf

f iciency groun ds, w e do not trea t the se as inde pen den t groun ds of rev ersible er ro r but, ins tead, cons ide r them as factors rele v ant t o our as ses sment of w hether the tr ial cour t abu sed it s d is creti on. Zor il la v. W ahid, 83 S .W .3d 2 47, 2 53 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 2002, no pet .) ; Cr

awfor d v . Hope, 8 98 S.W .2d 9 37, 9 40-4 1 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 1 995 , w rit deni ed) ; Thomas v. Thom as, 895 S.W .2d 8 95, 8 98 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1 9 9 5 , wri t den ied ). Here, C oll ins tes ti fied at the hear ing

. Her tes ti mony , w hil e br ief, c onfir med, among oth er things, the comm unity and sep arate prope rty of the pa rties. From the record before us, w e c annot s a y

the tr ial co urt’ s d iv is ion of the mar it al proper ty i nv olv ed an abuse of dis creti on. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Tipton ’s thi rd poi nt of er ro r. Com m unity Pr

oper ty Tipton ’s fourt h poi nt of er ro r is unc le a r. Appell ant first chal len g es the fai lure to inc lud e c ertai n c ommunity proper ty i n the Propose d M edi ati on on Fi nal Di v orce Dec re e and arg ues that becau se of this fail ure, the medi ati on w as not s ucc ess ful. W e do not h av e the Propose d M edi ati on i n the record before us and canno t c onsi der Tipt on’ s e x hib it s a ttac hedIf thi s w ere the cas e, appel lan t’ s re medy l ies i n Secti on 9. 203 of the Fami ly C ode. 3 See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.20 3 (Verno n 20 06). 7 to hi s b ri ef. See W

or ldPeace v. Com m is si

on fo r Lawyer

D is ci pli ne, 183 S.W .3d 4 51, 4 65, n.23 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2005, no p et.)

. th W e bel iev e, ho w ev er , app ell ant i s a ctu all y co mplai nin g thatthe tr ial co urt fail ed to div ide cer

tai n ass ets in the final decree and er re d w it h re g ard to ap pel lan t’ s e nti tl ement t o reimb ursem ent

. Ap pellan t supp orts his argume nt w ith several do cum ent s a ttach ed to his 3 br ief. As noted prev iou sl y , w e c annot co n sider th e att achment s a nd c an onl y ac t on the re cord before us. See WorldPeac e, 183 S.W .3d a t 465 , n. 23; Che rq ui v. W est hei m er Str eet Fe s t i v a l C o r p., 1 16 S. W .3d 3 37, 3 42, n .2 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 2003, no p et.) th (notin g tha t “w e can notconside r docum ent s atta ched as app end ices to briefs and must cons id e r a ca se based upon the record fil ed” ). Ti pton’ s four th po intof er ro r present s not hing for us to revi ew on a ppe al. W e overrule Tipt on’s fourth pointof error. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s e ntr y of the F ina l Dec re e of Di v orce.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice