Court Opinion

ID: 9655131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:00:50.64063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:16.237030
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
As in calculus, the Court can sometimes get the right answer because the mistakes made during the course of solving the problem cancel out each other. In school, that type of result is not credited as a correct answer.
There are two off-setting errors in the Court’s opinion. First, the Court holds the issues were preserved. They were not. Second, the Court holds the trial court could have, sua sponte, considered information in documents in its file without telling anyone that it was going to base its decision on them. It cannot.
PRESERVATION
For purposes of this concurring opinion, I will assume that the standard of review *694is abuse of discretion. The Court holds that a complaint that the trial court abused its discretion does not need to be preserved for review on appeal. Abuse of discretion is not one of the exceptions to the preservation requirement. See Tex. R.App. P. 33.1. This appeal should be resolved on the failure to preserve either issue.
Reliance on List Not in Evidence
The Court does not hide its reliance on evidence not properly within the scope of review. In resolving both issues, the Court references documents in the Clerk’s Record that the Court believes the trial court relied upon. In particular, the Court states, “... it appears that the trial court relied on prior filings (particularly, an attachment to the agreed temporary orders and a contempt motion filed by Julia shortly before trial).... ” The citation is to the evidentiary rule on judicial notice. See Tex.R. Evid. 201(c). This should make every trial lawyer shudder. Under this holding, the trial court need not advise the party what document in the Clerk’s Record, filed by whom or attached to what, the trial court is going to take judicial notice of, and rely upon, in resolving a disputed issue.
For the sake of completeness even in this summary concurring opinion, I note that the Court uses the same holding in resolving the second issue. The Court specifically states that “[fjrom the list of monthly expenses noted above, the trial court had before it sufficient information. ...” I think most trial attorneys will be aghast at. the trial court’s ability to consider something in making a determination without telling the parties it is taking judicial notice of it.
Finally, this type schedule does not contain the type information appropriate for judicial notice: It does- not meet either criteria under Texas Rule of Evidence 201(b).
Conclusion
But like the calculus student that got the right answer the wrong way, this Court’s affirmation of the judgment is the correct answer. I, however, believe the proper route to get to that answer is by determining the issues on appeal were not preserved. Accordingly, I concur in the result but not in the rationale of the Court.