BRETT CRONE v. BANK OF AMERICA SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO COUNTRYWIDE BANK FSB (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice O'Neill

In this forcible detainer suit, the trial court awarded possession of the property located at 1404 Lonesome Dove Trail, Wylie, Texas 75098 to appellee Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to Countrywide Bank. In four issues, appellant alleges (1) appellee offered no evidence appellant continued to occupy the property after a demand to vacate;  (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a claim of title;  (3) the business records affidavit does not satisfy the rules of evidence;  and (4) the evidence does not support attorney's fees.   We affirm the trial court's judgment and issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 because the law applied in this case is well-settled.

We begin our analysis by discussing the record on appeal.   Appellant failed to request or file a reporter's record.   When the appellant fails to bring forward a statement of facts, the appellate court will presume the statement of facts contained all matters supporting the trial court's judgment.   See, e.g., Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex.1990);  Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied);  Favaloro v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 994 S.W.2d 815, 821 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1999, pet. stricken).   Points of error dependent on the state of the evidence cannot be reviewed without a complete record, including a statement of facts.  Favaloro, 994 S.W.2d at 821.   If the appellant fails to bring forward a complete record, the court will conclude appellant has waived the points of error dependent on the state of the evidence.   Id.

All four of appellant's issues are dependent on a review of the record.   Without a record, we cannot determine whether appellee offered any evidence that appellant continued to occupy the property after a demand to vacate or whether the evidence was insufficient to support a prima facie claim of title.   Additionally, without a copy of the business records affidavit, we are unable to determine whether it meets the requirements of the rules of evidence.   And finally, whether appellee was entitled to attorney's fees is also dependent on the state of the evidence.   Thus, we must presume the evidence supports the trial court's judgment.  Christiansen, 782 S.W.2d at 843;  Favaloro, 994 S.W.2d at 821–22.

Accordingly, because appellant did not bring forward a statement of facts from the trial, he has waived his issues on appeal.   We overrule appellant's four issues.   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

100077F.P05

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE