Court Opinion

ID: 5103215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 23:49:32.271097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:09.301955
License: Public Domain

Case Number: 14-00-01160-CV 03/19/2003 Created for Data Conversion -- an event inserted to correspond to the mandate date of a process 03/19/2003 Mandate issued 03/19/2003 Case stored in record room 03/19/2003 Record returned to Court of Appeals 03/11/2003 Notice requesting filing fee 03/06/2003 Motion for Rehearing - Disposed proceeding denied 02/13/2003 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 02/11/2003 Amicus Curiae Brief received 01/24/2003 Motion for Rehearing - Filed 01/24/2003 Motion for Rehearing forwarded 01/15/2003 M/E/T to file Motion for Rehearing disposed Granted 01/13/2003 Corrected judgment issued 01/10/2003 M/E/T to file motion for rehearing 12/12/2002 Petition for Review disposed petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 12/12/2002 Court approved judgment sent to attys of record 12/12/2002 Per Curiam Opinion ca judgment reversed; remanded to ca 12/12/2002 Petition for Review disposed petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 12/12/2002 Order of the Court Issued Court of Appeals Opinion ordered published 07/10/2002 Reply brief 06/25/2002 Brief filed. 06/12/2002 Motion for Extension of Time disposed. Granted 06/11/2002 Motion for extension of time to file brief. 05/22/2002 Brief filed. 04/30/2002 Record Received (See Remarks) 04/22/2002 Record Requested in Petition for Review 04/22/2002 Brief on the Merits Requested 02/19/2002 Case forwarded to Court 02/13/2002 Response to Petition for Review filed 01/18/2002 Appendix Filed 01/18/2002 Petition for Review filed
 OPINION
This case arises out of a partnership dispute between two lawyers, appellant Robert S. Bennett and appellee Les Cochran. Bennett challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting various jury findings in favor of Cochran. We affirm.
 I. BACKGROUND
Cochran brought suit against Bennett seeking to recover damages for representations Bennett allegedly made regarding the formation of a law partnership. Bennett filed a counterclaim against Cochran alleging, among other things, breach of partnership agreement and partnership duties and fraud. A jury found Bennett liable for negligent misrepresentation and awarded $50, 000 to Cochran. The jury also found that Cochran failed to comply with an oral partnership agreement and awarded Bennett $24, 000 in damages and $50, 000 in attorney's fees. Finally, the jury found that Cochran assaulted Bennett and awarded $5, 000 in damages. Cochran filed a motion asking the court to disregard the jury findings regarding the partnership agreement and attorney's fees and to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court granted Cochran's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
 II. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Bennett presents three issues for our review: (1) there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the jury's finding that Cochran failed to comply with an oral partnership agreement; (2) there was more than a scintilla of evidence in the record supporting the jury's finding awarding him attorney's fees; and (3) the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that he made negligent misrepresentations.
All three of Bennett's issues require a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. Bennett, however, requested only a partial reporter's record. See TEX.R.APP. P. *Page 10 
34.6(c). Cochran argues that by requesting only a partial reporter's record, Bennett effectively waived all of his appellate issues. We agree.
Appellate review of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a no evidence review; therefore, this court must determine whether there was any evidence in the entire record, upon which a jury could have based its verdict. See Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1990) (stating that the entire record must be examined on appeal to successfully attack a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.). In order to review a factual or legal sufficiency point, we must consider the entire record. An appellant who wishes to urge a no-evidence point must provide the entire reporter's record. See Christiansen v. Prezelski,782 S.W.2d 842, 843—44 (Tex. 1990); see also Englander Co. v. Kennedy,428 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. 1968) (per curiam). When the appellant fails to bring forward a complete reporter's record, the appellate court will presume the record contained matters supporting the trial court's judgment. Murray v. Devco, Ltd., 731 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tex. 1987). Accordingly, in the absence of a complete record, we must presume the record contained evidence sufficient to support the jury's findings and the court's judgment.
 III. CONCLUSION
An appellate court cannot review issues which are dependant on the state of evidence without a complete reporter's record. Therefore, if the appellant fails to bring forward a complete record, the issues dependant on the state of evidence will be deemed to have been waived. See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1991). All of Bennett's issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and require a review of the entire record. Thus, by failing to provide this court with the entire record, Bennett has waived all error assigned by his three issues.1
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
1 Cochran also moved to dismiss this appeal based on Bennett's failure to present a complete reporter's record; however, we deny this motion because dismissal is not proper in this situation.