Court Opinion

ID: 9368864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 12:09:37.036787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:11.402129
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-20-00343-CV

                            INTERNATIONAL INSTALLATION, LLC,
                                        Appellant

                                                   v.

                                   MADERA MILLWORK, LTD.,
                                          Appellee

                      From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2018-CI-07179
                          Honorable Renée Yanta, Special Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting:          Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 1, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Appellant International Installation, LLC appeals a final judgment awarding it damages for

work it performed for appellee Madera Millwork, Ltd., formerly known as BOA Studio, LLC.

International Installation contends the trial court erred by miscalculating its damages award and

denying its motion to reopen evidence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                            BACKGROUND

           Madera Millwork hired International Installation to install custom millwork at two of its

construction projects: a James Avery jewelry store (“the James Avery Project”) and a dormitory
                                                                                                        04-20-00343-CV

on Texas Tech University’s campus (“the Texas Tech Project”). A dispute arose over whether

Madera Millwork fully paid International Installation for the work performed, and International

Installation 1 ultimately sued Madera Millwork 2 for breach of contract, quantum meruit,

promissory estoppel, money had and received, and fraud, seeking to recover the unpaid balance.

Madera Millwork counterclaimed, alleging International Installation committed fraud and violated

the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by making false representations in its invoices.

         International Installation then moved for partial summary judgment, arguing valid and

enforceable contracts regarding the construction projects existed between the parties as a matter

of law. The trial court granted International Installation’s motion and specifically found the parties

entered valid and enforceable contracts, and these contracts required Madera Millwork to pay

International Installation for the work it performed based on the timesheets it prepared. The parties

agreed to refer the remaining issues to a special judge pursuant to chapter 151 of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code to determine the amount owed, if any, by Madera Millwork.

         The remaining issues were tried before the special judge over three days. Two days after

trial, International Installation filed a motion to reopen evidence, specifically seeking permission

to replace two pages of Defendant’s Exhibit 18, which consisted of the timesheets for the James

Avery Project. International Installation argued it needed to replace the original two pages because

they were illegible. The special judge denied International Installation’s motion, and she granted

International Installation’s breach of contract claim and found Madera Millwork owed

International Installation $19,397.53 for the construction projects. She further found Madera

1
  Mario Hernandez, Sr., as President of International Installation, and International Installation originally initiated the
lawsuit, but at trial, International Installation explained it was the only proper plaintiff. It is undisputed Hernandez is
not a party to this appeal.
2
  The lawsuit was originally filed against Jason Holloway, individually, BOA Studio, LLC, and Madera Millwork.
The trial court ultimately dismissed Holloway as a defendant, and the record reflects Madera Millwork purchased all
of BOA Studio’s assets when BOA Studio terminated as an entity.

                                                           -2-
                                                                                       04-20-00343-CV

Millwork was entitled to a setoff for litigation costs in the amount of $27,722.10, reducing

International Installation’s recoverable judgment to zero. International Installation now appeals.

                  PARTIAL REPORTER’S RECORD AND INADEQUATE BRIEFING

       We begin by addressing Madera Millwork’s arguments regarding the partial reporter’s

record and inadequate briefing. Madera Millwork first argues because International Installation

has presented this appeal on a partial reporter’s record, we must presume the omitted portions of

the reporter’s record are relevant and support the judgment. For support, it points to Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c).

       Rule 34.6(c) provides an appellant may present an appeal on a partial reporter’s record only

if it includes in its request for the reporter’s record “a statement of the points or issues to be

presented on appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(c)(1). Appellant “will then be limited to those points

or issues.” Id. If an appellant fails to file the statement of appellate points or issues, we must then

presume the material missing from the reporter’s record is relevant and supports the trial court’s

judgment. Serralde v. Flores, No. 04-17-00078-CV, 2018 WL 987263, at *2 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio Feb. 21, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). There is nothing in Rule 34.6(c) relieving an appellant

of its ultimate burden to bring forth a record showing reversible error. Garcia v. Sasson, 516

S.W.3d 585, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

       Here, the trial before the special judge occurred over the course of three days: February 17,

18, and 24, 2020. However, the reporter’s record consists of only the proceedings from the first

day of trial and a hearing held on March 9, 2020, regarding the special judge’s explanation of the

damages calculation. It did not include either the second or third days of trial or the exhibits

admitted into evidence at trial. International Installation also did not file a statement of appellate

                                                 -3-
                                                                                                          04-20-00343-CV

points or issues it intended to present on appeal as required by Rule 34.6(c)(1). 3 We must therefore

presume the omitted portions of the record are relevant and support the trial court’s judgment. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(c)(1); Serralde, 2018 WL 987263, at *2.

         Madera Millwork next argues International Installation waived each of its appellate

challenges because of inadequate briefing.                    According to Madera Millwork, International

Installation’s brief is conclusory and cites only a 1936 case for support. The Texas Supreme Court

has stated “[a]ppellate briefs are to be construed reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to

appellate review is not lost by waiver.” Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008). Thus,

even though International Installation’s arguments are short and there is only one citation to legal

authority, we conclude the brief sufficiently complies, and we will address each argument to the

extent possible on a partial reporter’s record. See id.

                                                       DAMAGES

         International Installation contends the trial court erred by miscalculating its damages award

because it did not include the time worked by Mario Hernandez, Sr. at the Texas Tech Project in

its calculation. For support, it points to Hernandez’s testimony stating he supervised the workers

at the Texas Tech Project and worked the same amount of time as the supervised workers. Thus,

the trial court should have awarded it damages for the time Hernandez worked.

         Here, it is undisputed the damages issue was before the special judge. Specifically, the

judge heard from Hernandez, who testified he worked at the Texas Tech Project, but he did not

3
  We note International Installation filed a letter after the appellee’s brief was filed and the appeal was “at issue,”
stating the partial record “contain[ed] the portions of the trial upon which [its] appeal is based.” Even if we construed
the letter as a proper statement of appellate points, it is late. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b) (stating appellant must request
the record from the official reporter at or before the time for perfecting appeal). “To give effect to [International
Installation’s] late filing of the statement of points or issues on appeal would go against the spirit of the rules of
appellate procedure.” Old Tin Roof Steakhouse, LLC v. Haskett, No. 04-12-00363-CV, 2013 WL 1148921, at *4 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Mar. 20, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore decline to
do so. See id. (holding late attempt to comply with rule is ineffective).

                                                            -4-
                                                                                               04-20-00343-CV

document his time worked on any timesheets. International Installation, however, did not provide

a complete record of this proceeding or include a statement of points or issues it wished to present

on appeal in its notice of appeal. Without a complete record, we cannot determine whether the

trial court made an evidentiary error, and we must presume the omitted portions of the record are

relevant and support the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(c)(1); Serralde, 2018 WL

987263, at *2.

        To the extent International Installation contends the trial court admitted it did not include

the time Hernandez worked at the Texas Tech Project, the special judge provided her reasoning

for the damages calculation at the March 9, 2020 hearing. There, she explained she did not include

Hernandez’s time because it was not listed on the timesheets, and she was bound by the trial court’s

previous finding requiring the payment calculation be based on the timesheets International

Installation prepared. In absence of a complete reporter’s record, we cannot ascertain the exact

content of the evidence presented to the special judge and whether Hernandez’s time for the Texas

Tech Project was reflected on the timesheets. 4 See DeAnder & Felhaber, LP v. Montgomery, 615

S.W.3d 352, 360–61 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 10, 2020, pet. denied) (reasoning exact content of

evidence presented at arbitration hearing could not be determined based solely on arbitrator’s

explanation in absence of complete reporter’s record). Therefore, because we cannot review all

the testimony offered or the exhibits admitted into evidence, we must presume the omitted portions

of the record support the special judge’s reasoning for the damages calculation. See id.; see also

Garcia, 526 S.W.3d at 593. Accordingly, we overrule International Installation’s challenge to the

damages award.

4
  We note International Installation attached a copy of the timesheets admitted for the Texas Tech Project as an
appendix to its brief, and the timesheets do not include any time worked for Hernandez. Nevertheless, documents
attached as appendices to briefs do not constitute part of the record, and we may not consider such documents on
appeal. Garcia, 516 S.W.3d at 591.

                                                     -5-
                                                                                      04-20-00343-CV

                                 MOTION TO REOPEN EVIDENCE

       International Installation next contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying its

motion to reopen evidence, which requested substitution of two pages of Defendant’s Exhibit 18—

timesheets for the James Avery Project. According to International Installation, the trial court

should have granted the motion because the two pages were more legible and showed time the trial

court should have included in the damages award.

       “We review the denial of a motion to reopen evidence under an abuse of discretion

standard.” In re B.J.M., No. 04-14-00300-CV, 2015 WL 1244804, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

Mar. 18, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270, a trial court may

allow a party to offer additional evidence at any time “it clearly appears to be necessary to the due

administration of justice.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 270; B.J.M., 2015 WL 1244804, at *2. In making its

determination, a trial court “should consider whether: (1) the moving party showed due diligence

in obtaining the evidence; (2) the proffered evidence is decisive; (3) reception of such evidence

will cause undue delay; and (4) granting the motion will cause injustice.” B.J.M., 2015 WL

1244804, at *2. The rule is permissive and does not require the admission of additional evidence.

Poag v. Flories, 317 S.W.3d 820, 828 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied). “[A] trial court

does not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen a case after evidence is closed if the party

seeking to reopen has not shown diligence in attempting to produce the evidence in a timely

fashion.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lopez v. Lopez, 55 S.W.3d 194, 201 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To show diligence, a party

must establish either that the evidence was previously unavailable or that the party had no

opportunity to present the proof to the court before judgment.” Rollins v. Tex. Coll., 515 S.W.3d

364, 371 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2016, pet. denied).

                                                -6-
                                                                                        04-20-00343-CV

        Here, International Installation filed its motion to reopen evidence two days after trial

concluded. In its motion, it argued Defendant’s Exhibit 18 consisted of faxed copies of timesheets

it originally sent Madera Millwork before trial, and the quality of the faxed copies was illegible.

Even assuming the quality of the copies was illegible, International Installation does not dispute

the availability of the evidence at the time of trial. In fact, on the first day of trial, International

Installation marked the same set of timesheets as Exhibit 1, but it never admitted them into

evidence. Given these facts on a partial reporter’s record, we conclude International Installation

failed to show diligence in ensuring legible copies of timesheets for the James Avery Project were

admitted into evidence. See Moore v. Jet Stream Invs., Ltd., 315 S.W.3d 195, 201–02 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (concluding appellant failed to show diligence in producing evidence in

a timely fashion when it had access to evidence “all along”). International Installation also failed

to establish the evidence was previously unavailable or it did not have an opportunity to present it

before judgment. See Rollins, 515 S.W.3d at 371 (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion

in denying motion to reopen evidence when appellant failed to show affidavit was unavailable

prior to granting of summary judgment); Moore, 315 S.W.3d at 201–02 (holding trial court did not

abuse its discretion in denying motion to reopen evidence when evidence was readily available

prior to trial). We therefore hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying International

Installation’s motion to reopen the evidence.

                                            CONCLUSION

        Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                    Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

                                                  -7-