Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 2015-CI-20578 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C.
Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Elena D. Chapa, Justice
appeals the trial court's final order in a child support
enforcement action, complaining of the trial court's
award of $26, 965 in attorney's fees to the child's
mother, T.B. We affirm the order.
December 2015, T.B. registered a foreign child support order
and moved for its enforcement against T.H. T.H. filed a
counterclaim, seeking to modify the conservatorship and
support provisions of the parties' December 2007 Agreed
Parenting Plan Final Order rendered by a court in the State
of Washington. Both parties requested an award of
extended discovery and numerous continuances, both
parties' motions were set for final hearing on April 2,
2018. Trial was to the court and no reporter's record was
taken of the proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the trial court orally ruled on most of the issues raised in
the parties' motions and took the issue of attorney's
fees under submission. Both parties submitted additional
briefing on the issue of fees to the trial court. On August
28, 2018, the trial court issued separate orders in the two
proceedings. In the enforcement proceeding, the court found
T.H. in contempt, rendered judgment for over $28, 000 in
child support arrearages, and rendered judgment against T.H.
in the amount of $26, 965.00 for reasonable attorney's
fees, expenses, and costs incurred in connection with the
enforcement proceeding. The court signed a separate order in
the modification proceeding and ordered that each party bear
its own attorney's fees in that proceeding. The
enforcement order recited that no record was taken of the
proceeding, and the modification order additionally recited
that the parties agreed to waive a record. The trial court
subsequently issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.
timely appealed the enforcement order, raising three issues.
In his third issue, T.H. argues evidence of T.B.'s
attorney's fees incurred after July 2, 2017, should have
been excluded pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
193.6(a) because T.B. did not timely supplement her discovery
responses. We disagree.
request for production number 35 asked T.B. to produce
"your agreement or contract for legal services between
you and your attorney and any accompanying billings
statements." T.B. objected to producing attorney work
product and privileged attorney-client communications.
Subject to the objections, T.B. produced redacted copies of
the billing statements from her attorney and supplemented her
production throughout the case.
parties agree that at a hearing held July 14, 2017, the trial
court ordered T.B. to provide T.H., within three days after
the hearing, a breakdown of the fees incurred to date that
T.B. sought for prosecution of the enforcement action and the
amount sought for defense of the modification action. It is
undisputed that T.B. timely produced copies of her
attorney's redacted billing statements dated through July
2, 2017, with the entries labelled as relating to the
enforcement action, the modification action, or both. T.B.
also continued to timely supplement her response to request
for production number 35 by producing copies of her
attorney's redacted billing statements; however, the time
entries in her discovery supplements were not categorized. On
March 29, 2018, five days before the final hearing, T.B.
served a copy of her attorney's fees trial exhibit on
T.H. The exhibit included all the fee statements she
previously produced, plus a statement dated March 23, 2018,
and labelled each entry in the statements as relating to the
enforcement proceeding, modification proceeding, or both.
contends T.B. was required to segregate the attorney's
fees in all of her supplemental production after the July 14,
2017 hearing. He argues T.B.'s failure to produce a
segregation of the fees incurred after July 2, 2017, at least
thirty days before trial violated Rule of Civil Procedure
193.5, resulting in an automatic exclusion of the evidence
pursuant to rule 193. (6) See Tex. R. Civ. P.
193.5(b), 193.6(a). We disagree because the record does not
establish T.B. was under any obligation to produce segregated
or categorized copies of her attorney's fee statements
after the July 2, 2017 statement. T.H.'s request for
production required only production of the billing
statements, which were timely produced. The trial court did
not sign a written order reflecting its July 14, 2017
ruling, a record of the July 14 hearing was not
requested or filed, and T.B. disputes T.H.'s assertion
that the trial court imposed a continuing obligation on T.B.
to produce segregated fee statements. Because T.H. has not
shown that T.B. failed to supplement a discovery response in
a timely manner, the trial court did not err in failing to
exclude evidence of attorney's fees incurred after July
argues in two issues that there is legally insufficient
evidence to support the fee award because there was no
specific evidence evaluating the factors enumerated in
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Co., 945
S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997), and because T.B. failed to
sufficiently "segregate fees between claims for which
they are recoverable and claims for which they are not."
See Tony Gullo Motors, I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d
299, 312-13 (Tex. 2006). However, T.H. did not request a
record of the April 3, 2018 trial and none was filed. The
trial court's final orders recited that no record was
made of the trial and the modification order recites the
parties waived the making of a record. In its findings of
fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found the fees
awarded were reasonable and incurred solely for the
prosecution of the enforcement motion.
appellant's burden to bring forward a record showing the
error alleged. Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d
842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam). In the absence of a
reporter's record, we are unable review the evidence and
apply the appropriate standards. See In re L.C.H.,
80 S.W.3d 689, 691 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). When
no record has been requested or filed, we presume the
evidence admitted at trial is legally and factually
sufficient to support the trial court's findings and
order. See Sareen v. Sareen, 350 S.W.3d 314, 317
(Tex. App.-San Antonio 2011, no pet.); In re L.C.H.,
80 S.W.3d at 691. We therefore overrule T.H.'s remaining
issues and affirm the trial court's order.