Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County,
Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Monica and Francisco Garcia appeal the trial court's
final judgment in favor of appellees Ambassador Realty Group,
Nelda Gomez, and Reynaldo Ortiz (collectively, Ambassador).
By six issues, which we address as two, the Garcias contend
that the trial court should not have (1) denied their motion
for summary judgment (issue one), and (2) rendered judgment,
damages, attorney's fees, or costs in favor of
Ambassador. We affirm.
their first issue, the Garcias contend that the trial court
should not have denied their motion for summary judgment
because there is no written agreement authorizing Ambassador
to collect a realty broker commission for the sale of
property owned and sold by the Garcias. However, the denial
of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable after a
trial on the merits. Hines v. Comm'n for Lawyer
Discipline, 28 S.W.3d 697, 700 (Tex. App.-Corpus
Christi-Edinburg 2000, no pet.) (concluding that we have no
jurisdiction to review a trial court's denial of a motion
for summary judgment following a trial on the merits) (citing
Ackermann v. Vordenbaum, 403 S.W.2d 362, 365 (Tex.
1966)). Here, after the trial court denied the Garcias'
motion for summary judgment, it held a trial on the merits.
Accordingly, we overrule the Garcias' first
issue. See id.; see also Garcia v.
Perez, No. 13-17-00673-CV, 2019 WL 2221674, at *3 (Tex.
App.-Corpus Christi- Edinburg May 23, 2019, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (rejecting the appellant's arguments that the trial
court improperly denied his pre-trial motion for partial
summary judgment because the trial court held a trial on the
merits (citing Lancer Ins. v. Garcia Holiday Tours,
345 S.W.3d 50, 59 (Tex. 2011); Ackermann, 403 S.W.2d
Trial on the Merits
their sixth issue, the Garcias contend that there was no
evidence of fraud. Ambassador responds that the Garcias have
failed to provide a record of the trial on the merits, and
therefore, we must presume that the trial court's
judgment was supported by sufficient evidence. We agree with
the Garcias request that this Court review the sufficiency of
the evidence presented by the parties at the trial on the
merits; however, the Garcias did not request for the reporter
to provide a record of the trial on the merits to this Court.
The Garcias requested that the reporter include the record of
the attorneys' closing argument; however, that record
does not include the evidence presented.
absence of a reporter's record, "[w]e indulge every
presumption in favor of the trial court's findings."
Bryant v. United Shortline Inc. Assur. Servs., N.A.,
972 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tex. 1998); Huston v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 434 S.W.3d 630, 637 (Tex. App.- Houston
[1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (concluding that the appellant
had not met her burden of bringing forth a sufficient record
demonstrating error by the trial court because she had not
presented a record containing the trial court's ruling);
Willms v. Am. Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied) ("[W]hen an appellant
fails to bring a reporter's record, an appellate court
must presume the evidence presented was sufficient to support
the trial court's order."); see also Brazle v.
Meadows on the Mews Owners Ass'n, No.
14-10-01016-CV, 2011 WL 6141587, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] Dec. 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Unless
an appellant arranges for the filing of a complete
reporter's record (or partial reporter's record and
accompanying statement of issues), we must presume that the
proceedings support the trial court's
judgment.").Therefore, because we do not have the
reporter's record, we have no way of ascertaining what
evidence the trial court considered when it found that the
Garcias committed fraud. We overrule the Garcias' sixth
affirm the trial court's judgment.