Court Opinion

ID: 9963362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 09:12:44.813507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:47.617461
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-24-00127-CV

                   PAUL CZARKOWSKI-GOLEJEWSKI, APPELLANT

                                             V.

                        KELLY VICTORIA WILSON, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 98th District Court
                                   Travis County, Texas
           Trial Court No. D-1-FM-22-000500, Honorable Laurie Eiserloh, Presiding

                                      April 19, 2024
                    ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND

                   Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Paul Czarkowski-Golejewski, appeals from the trial court’s Final Decree

of Divorce signed on December 12, 2023, in the case styled In the Matter of the Marriage

of Paul Czarkowski-Golejewski and Kelly Victoria Wilson. Now pending before this Court

is Czarkowski-Golejewski’s “Unopposed Motion to Abate Appeal to Require District Court

to Issue Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” We grant the motion and remand the

cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
       Following a trial to the bench, the trial court signed its final decree of divorce on

December 12, 2023. Therein, it granted the divorce, divided the marital estate, and

provided spousal maintenance be paid to Wilson. Czarkowski-Golejewski timely filed a

request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 27, 2023, and timely filed

a notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 26, 2024. To date,

no findings of fact and conclusions of law have been signed.

       Upon a timely request, the trial court in a bench trial must file written findings of

fact and conclusions of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 297; Nev. Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Andrews

Indep. Sch. Dist., 225 S.W.3d 68, 77 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.). Because the

trial court’s duty to file findings and conclusions is mandatory, a trial court’s failure to do

so when all requests have been properly made is presumed harmful, unless “the record

before the appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no

injury.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989) (citing

Wagner v. Riske, 178 S.W.2d 117, 120 (1944)). When the trial court’s reasons for its

judgment are apparent from the record, the presumption of harm is rebutted. See Rollins

v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 219 S.W.3d 1, 5–6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (“[W] here the facts are undisputed and the only matters presented

on appeal are legal issues to be reviewed de novo, the failure to file findings of fact and

conclusions of law is harmless error.”).

       An appellant is harmed, however, if there are two or more possible grounds on

which the trial court could have ruled, and the appellant is left to guess the basis for the

trial court’s ruling. Academy Corp. v. Interior Buildout & Turnkey Constr., Inc., 21 S.W.3d

732, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). When the trial court’s failure is

                                              2
harmful, the appropriate remedy is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to file the

missing findings. AD Villarai, LLC v. Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132, 136 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam);

see TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4 (requiring appellate courts to direct the trial court to remedy any

correctable error that “prevents the proper presentation of a case to the court of appeals”).

       Upon preliminary review of the substantial record, we find that the matters

presented to the trial court involved the just and right division of the rather complex marital

estate and fact-intensive inquiries into spousal maintenance and a claim of waste. These

matters were not undisputed, and the precise reasons for the trial court’s rulings are not

obvious from the record. Czarkowski-Golejewski represents that the absence of findings

of fact and conclusions of law would hinder his presentation of his appeal. Notably, his

representations go uncontested. Consequently, we cannot conclude that Czarkowski-

Golejewski suffered no harm from the trial court’s failure to issue the requested findings

of fact and conclusions of law. See Hamlett v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, No. 07-16-

00256-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11488, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 24, 2016, order)

(per curiam) (remanding for findings where record did not affirmatively show that the

appellant suffered no harm as a result of the trial court’s failure to file the requested

findings).

       Accordingly, we now grant Czarkowski-Golejewski’s motion, abate this appeal,

and remand the cause to the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in

support of its Final Decree of Divorce. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 297; TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4(b).

The trial court shall cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental

clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than May 20, 2024. Should

                                              3
further time be needed by the trial court to comply, it must request same of this Court in

writing before May 20, 2024.

      It is so ordered.

                                                       Per Curiam

                                            4