Rickey L. and Karen Holland, Appellant v. Friedman & Feiger, Lawrence J. Friedman, and Marla S. Pittman, Appellees (2015)

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING

In our original opinion, we did not consider Judge Snipes's ruling on the Hollands' first motion to recuse the trial judge because we did not have the record of that hearing before us and the Hollands had failed to properly request the court reporter to include that hearing in the record.   On rehearing, the Hollands assert we incorrectly determined they had not requested the record.   To support this assertion, the Hollands rely on a “Designation of Supplemental Reporter's Record,” which they had filed in the trial court, but was not before us when we issued our opinion.   The designation does not name the court reporter that transcribed the hearing or otherwise reflect it was sent to the court reporter.²

On rehearing, the Hollands have not requested this Court to supplement the record with either its designation or the certified record of the hearing.   Nor does it appear they have taken any other actions to have the court reporter file the official record with this Court.   Instead, they have attached an unofficial copy of a transcript of the hearing to their motion for rehearing for our review.   Such attachments are not part of the record on appeal.   See Am. Heritage Cap. L.P. v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865, 882 n.3 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.).   But in the interests of justice, we sua sponte ordered the court reporter to file the record of the hearing with this Court.   The court reporter has not, however, timely complied with our order.

We strongly caution court reporters they are required to obey the orders of this Court.   See, e.g. ex parte Sanchez, 703 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.1986) (court reporter held in contempt for failing to comply with appellate court's order).   Nevertheless, due to the peculiar posture of this case, and in order to avoid further delay, we have reviewed the copy of the unofficial transcript in light of the Hollands' arguments.   In doing so, we note that appellees have not themselves complained that this Court lacks a record or asserted there are any inaccuracies in the copy of the transcript.   In all events, we conclude the Hollands have failed to show Judge Snipes abused his discretion in denying their motion to recuse.  Tex.R. Civ. P. 18a(f) (denial of motion to recuse reviewed for abuse of discretion).   We have also reviewed the Hollands' other complaints in the motion for rehearing and conclude they are without merit.   Consequently, we deny the motion.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

2.   Unsurprisingly, the motion to recuse was not transcribed by the trial court's official court reporter.

Opinion by Justice Schenck 1 FN1. After the Court issued the opinion in this case, Justice David Schenck succeeded the Honorable Michael O'Neill following his retirement from the Court.