CHAD NORCROSS v. GUILLERMO ANDRADE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

CHAD A. NORCROSS, Appellant v. GUILLERMO ANDRADE, Appellee

No. 05-08-01321-CV

Decided: February 19, 2010

Before Justices Morris, O'Neill, and Fillmore

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice O'Neill

Appellant Chad A. Norcross appeals a take-nothing judgment on his counterclaim for breach of contract.   In a single issue, Norcross contends the trial court erred in failing to render a judgment in his favor in accordance with his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.   For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellee Guillermo Andrade sued appellant Chad A. Norcross for breach of contract.   Norcross counterclaimed for breach of contract.   Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment that both parties take-nothing on their claims.   Before the trial court signed its judgment, Norcross requested findings of fact and conclusions of law.   At the trial court's request, Norcross filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.   These proposed findings were not consistent with the judgment the trial court rendered and would have resulted in a judgment in Norcross's favor.   The trial court did not sign the proposed findings.   The trial court subsequently signed a judgment that both Norcross and Andrade take-nothing on their claims.   The trial court did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law.   Norcross did not file a notice of past due findings.

In this appeal, Norcross contends we should treat his proposed findings as binding even though they are contrary to the trial court's judgment and were never signed by the trial court.   However, because the findings are not signed by the trial court, they are not the trial court's findings, and we will not treat them as such.   Nor can Norcross complain of the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law because he never filed a notice of past due findings.   See Tex.R. Civ. P. 297;  Ex parte Jackson, 132 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.);  Am. Realty Trust, Inc. v. JDN Real Estate-McKinney, L.P., 74 S.W.3d 527, 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. denied).   Finally, Norcross did not request a reporter's record in this case.   When there is no reporter's record and findings of fact and conclusions of law are neither properly requested nor filed, the judgment of the trial court implies all necessary findings of fact to sustain its judgment.  Waltenburg v. Waltenburg, 270 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).   We resolve the sole issue against Norcross.   We affirm the trial court's judgment.

081321F.P05

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE

Copied to clipboard