Opinion

Rogers Thomson and Billie C. Collie v. Augustine Scoma Riley

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Dec 29, 2005
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Opinion issued

Opinion issued December

29, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-05-00421-CV

ROGERS THOMSON AND BILLIE J. COLLIE, INDEPENDENT

CO-EXECUTORS FOR THE ESTATE OF PATRICK EDWARD KINTZ, Appellants

V.

RHONDA RILEY, INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF

AUGUSTINE SCOMA RILEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 98-40300

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

appeal involves enforcement of a divorce decree and property settlement

agreement. Appellants, Rogers Thomson

and Billie J. Collie, independent co-executors for the estate of Patrick Edward

Kintz, ask that we reverse and remand for a new trial because the court

reporter lost a portion of the record.

We grant the motion, reverse the judgment, and remand for a new trial.

The

trial in this case commenced on January 3, 2005. As the trial court’s official court reporter,

Lisa Moody, was unable to attend court on that day, the trial court asked

Walter Johnson to act as deputy reporter during her absence. Moody returned the following day to

transcribe the remainder of the trial.

After the Court Reporters

Certification Board notified us that Johnson’s certification had lapsed on

December 31, 2004, we ordered the parties to attempt to obtain an uncertified

copy of the reporter’s record. Johnson subsequently

wrote to us that he is unable to produce a transcript, whether certified or

not, because his shorthand machine notes were destroyed during the move to his

current residence, and he did not use a tape-recorder backup. [1] The missing transcript contains one full day

of testimony from the two-day trial. On

appeal, we will be asked to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence to support

the trial court’s judgment.

Appellants

contend that because a complete reporter’s record is necessary to their appeal,

we should reverse and remand for a new trial under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 34.6(f), which provides as follows:

Reporter’s Record Lost or Destroyed . An appellant

is entitled to a new trial under the following circumstances:

(1) if the appellant has timely requested a reporter’s

record;

(2) if, without the appellant’s fault, . . . a

significant portion of the court reporter’s notes and records has been lost or

destroyed . . . ;

(3) if the lost [or] destroyed . . . portion of the

reporter’s record . . . is necessary to the appeal’s resolution; and

(4) if the lost [or] destroyed . . . portion of the

reporter’s record cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties . . . .

Tex. R. App. P. 34.6( f)(1)–(4).

After

reviewing the record and considering appellee’s response, we determine that the

four prongs of Rule 34.6(f) are satisfied.

Given the nature of the potential points of error on appeal, and the

complete absence of any record of the first full day of trial testimony, we

conclude that appellants have met their burden of showing that the lost portion

of the record is necessary to the appeal’s resolution and cannot be replaced by

agreement of the parties. Accordingly,

we reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Jane

Bland

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice

Radack and Justices Alcala and Bland.

[1] Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(b), it is

the responsibility of the court reporter—not the appellant—to file the

reporter’s record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.