Court Opinion

ID: 9398000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-28 07:11:24.379292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.614643
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 23, 2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-21-00476-CV

           ROBERT HANSON AND ROBIN HANSON, Appellant
                                        V.
                        ZHOUYUAN ZHANG, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
                          Fort Bend County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 21-CCV-069420

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In two issues, appellants Robert and Robin Hanson appeal the county court
at law’s judgment evicting them from a house in the forcible-detainer action
brought by their new landlord, appellee ZhouYuan Zhang (“Zhang”). Tex. Prop.
Code Ann. § 24.002. First, the Hansons argue that there is insufficient evidence to
support the judgment.    Second, the Hansons argue that attorneys’ fees were
improperly awarded. We affirm.
                    I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1

       In December 2013, the Hansons began renting a house in Richmond
pursuant to a residential lease agreement with Hispamex Realty Investments. The
initial term of the lease was from December 26, 2013 to March 31, 2015, requiring
rental payment of $1,895.00 a month, after which the Lease renewed on a month-
to-month basis.

       After the initial term had expired, ZhouYuan Zhang (“Zhang”) purchased
the residence from Hispamex. The Hansons failed to make rental payments to
Zhang as required.

       On May 5, 2021, Zhang’s property management company sent a notice to
vacate to the Hansons. The notice informed the Hansons that $6,934.00 in rent was
past-due and that they were required to move out of the residence six (6) days after
the date of the notice. The Hansons refused to vacate.2 On May 18, 2021, Zhang
filed a forcible-detainer action against the Hansons in Justice Court, Fort Bend
County, Precinct No. 3 (“Justice Court”).

       The Hansons agree that they were served with the citation for the eviction
lawsuit on June 1, 2021, and that a hearing was held on June 8, 2021. The justice
of the peace signed a judgment in favor of Zhang for (1) possession of the premises
and (2) for court costs and $7,580.00) in rent.               See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

       1
       In the absence of a reporter’s record, all facts stated below are based on the pleadings,
documents, and papers in the clerk’s record.
       2
         Though no support is contained in the record, on appeal the Hansons contend that: they
regularly and faithfully paid all amounts due to the Original Owner and enjoyed occupancy of
the premises for many years; in March 2021, they were notified that their home had been sold to
Mr. Zhang who then demanded that the Hansons pay him another security deposit; Mr. Zhang
also engaged a management company for the home; the parties entered into discussions
regarding the terms for the Hansons’ continued occupancy of the home; the management
company was to provide the Hansons a log-in for their system so that they could pay rent for the
property and failed to do so.

                                               2
§ 27.031(a)(2) (jurisdiction of justice court). The Hansons appealed on trial de
novo to the Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 4 (“Statutory County Court”).
Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.9(a), (f), .10(c); see Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 26.042(e)
(appellate jurisdiction of county court); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 25.0003(a)
(“statutory county court has jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings, civil and
criminal, original and appellate, prescribed by law for county courts”).

       The Statutory County Court called the eviction suit to trial on August 11,
2021. The docket sheet indicates that the Statutory County Court heard testimony
from Dawn Wilson, Jim Zhang, and Robert Hanson, and that the court admitted
Zhang’s exhibits A, B, C, and D. Neither party contends that a reporter’s record
was taken; Zhang affirmatively contends there was none, and the Statutory County
Court’s reporter representing to be the only court reporter involved with the case
has also represented to this court that no reporter’s record was made.3

       After the trial, the Statutory County Court signed an order, which included
findings that:

       (1) Zhang was the Owner of the Residence;
       (2) the Hansons defaulted under the Lease and Zhang terminated the
       Hanson’s right to occupy the Residence;
       (3) Zhang made, and the Hansons received, the notice to vacate
       required by law;
       (4) the Hansons failed to vacate and were guilty of forcible detainer.
       In accordance with those findings, the County Court awarded possession to
Zhang, and ordered the Hansons to pay Zhang $10,209.00 in past-due rent, post-

       3
          The docket sheet further indicates that at the time of the Statutory County Court’s
hearing, the Hansons had no pending application for rental assistance and no interest in
participating in the Texas Eviction Diversion Program. (“Defendants have no pending
application for rental assistance; no interest to participate in the Texas Eviction Diversion
Program.”)

                                             3
judgment interest, $1,350 in attorney’s fees, and costs.

                           II. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

      The Hansons first issue on appeal is that the there is insufficient evidence to
support the elements required for Zhang to prevail on his claim for forcible
detainer.

      In our legal-sufficiency review, we credit all evidence and inferences
favorable to the trial court's decision if a reasonable factfinder could, and we
disregard all evidence contrary to that decision unless a reasonable factfinder could
not. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 828 (Tex. 2005). Because the
record contains no findings of fact and conclusions of law, we review the trial
court’s finding that Zhang established that: (1) he is the owner of the property, (2)
the Hansons were tenants at sufferance or at will, (3) Zhang made a written
demand for possession, (4) Zhang gave notice to the defendant to vacate the
premises, and (5) the Hansons refused to vacate the premises. See Tex. Prop. Code
Ann. §§ 24.002, 24.005; Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471, 478
(Tex. 2017). “If the proceeding's nature, the trial court's order, the party's briefs, or
other indications show that an evidentiary hearing took place in open court, then a
complaining party must present a record of that hearing to establish harmful error.”
Michiana Easy Livin' Country v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 783 (Tex. 2005). “The
burden is on the appellant to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error
requiring reversal.” Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990).

      However, our appellate record contains no record of the proceedings at trial
because no record was made. In the absence of a complete record, certain
presumptions apply, unless the appeal is based upon a partial reporter’s record.
Emesowum v. Morgan, No. 14-13-00397-CV, 2014 WL 3587385, at *1–2 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 22, 2014, pet. dism’d). The Hansons have not
                                           4
undertaken an appeal based upon a partial reporter’s record; this is not a case under
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c), which governs partial-record appeals.
See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c); Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex. 2002).
Therefore, unless our appellate record contains a complete record of the trial, we
presume the omitted portions are relevant to the disposition of this appeal. See
Wilson v. Patterson, No.14–10–00943–CV, 2011 WL 4924252, at * 1 (Tex. App.-
Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). In the absence of a record upon which to base
any review of the evidence, the Hansons’ complaint regarding the sufficiency of
evidence is not preserved. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

      We therefore overrule the Hansons’ first issue.

                          III. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARD

      In their second issue, the Hansons argue that Zhang is not a ‘prevailing
party’ entitled to recover attorney’s fees because the forcible detainer suit should
not have been permitted to go forward in light of federal and state eviction
diversion laws such that the Statutory County Court erred in its application of the
CARES Act and the Texas Supreme Court’s 37th Emergency Order.

In response, Zhang contends that the Hansons failed to raise this issue prior to
appeal. Our review of the Statutory County Court’s record reveals the following
that the Statutory County Court’s electronic docket sheet indicates that Court
considered whether the Hansons had applied for rental assistance, but notes that
“Defendants have no pending application for rental assistance; no interest in the
Texas Eviction Diversion Program”:

                                         5
      As discussed above, no reporter’s record was made of the trial. The clerk’s
record contains no post-judgment motion challenging the attorneys’ fees on any
grounds. In the absence of an objection to attorneys’ fees, the Hansons have not
preserved the issue on appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.

      We therefore overrule the Hansons’ second issue on appeal.

                                 IV. CONCLUSION

      We affirm the County Court’s judgment.

                                      /s/       Randy Wilson
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.

                                            6