Opinion

Anthony R. Sueing, Sr., Frontline Recovery and Consulting, Inc.,, and Frontline Recovery and Consulting North Inc. v. Jerald A. Brown, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Frontline Recovery and Consulting, Inc., and Frontline Recovery and Consulting North, Inc.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Apr 16, 2020
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.5%

“The purpose of Rule 296 is to give a party a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law finally adjudicated after a conventional trial on the merits before the court.”

How later courts described this case

  • “The purpose of Rule 296 is to give a party a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law finally adjudicated after a conventional trial on the merits before the court.”
  • no rule or statute “grants successor judges the authority to file findings on behalf of their predecessors displaced by an election”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Anthony R. Sueing, Sr. v. Jerald A. Brown, individually and

derivatively on behalf of Frontline Recovery and Consulting, Inc., and

Frontline Recovery and Consulting North, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00939-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-61662

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment dated August 15, 2018, which was

entered after a nonjury trial. The appellants timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of

law and timely filed a notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. CIV.

P. 296, 297. The trial court did not file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On appeal, the appellants assert that they are unable to properly present their case on

appeal because there were multiple grounds for recovery, and, in the absence of findings of fact

and conclusions of law, they are forced to guess the basis for the trial court’s judgment.

“A party is entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law after a conventional trial on

the merits to the court.” U. Lawrence Bozé & Assocs., P.C. v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist., 368

S.W.3d 17, 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see TEX. R. CIV. P. 296; see also

IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Tex. 1997) (“The purpose of

Rule 296 is to give a party a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law finally adjudicated

after a conventional trial on the merits before the court.”). “A trial court’s failure to file findings

in response to a timely and proper request is . . . presumed harmful, unless the record before the

appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no injury.” Ad

Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex. 2017) (internal quotations omitted).

When a case involves “only a single ground of recovery or a single defense,” “an appellant is not

harmed by a failure to file findings and conclusions because he is not required to guess the

reasons for a trial court’s judgment.” Wood v. Pharia L.L.C., No. 01–10–00579–CV, 2010 WL

5060621, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 9, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). But when “a

party is prevented from presenting his case on appeal, he has been harmed.” Alsenz v. Alsenz,

101 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Typically, the remedy

for failure to file timely requested findings of fact and conclusion of law is to abate. See Elliott v.

Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 50, 54 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

This is not a case involving only a single ground of recovery or a single defense;

therefore, we conclude that the record does not affirmatively show that the appellants have not

been harmed by the trial court’s failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Ad

Villarai, 519 S.W.3d at 135. Because the trial judge continues to serve on the district court, the

error in this case is remediable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1; Ad Villarai, 519 S.W.3d at 140 (no rule

or statute “grants successor judges the authority to file findings on behalf of their predecessors

displaced by an election”).

We order the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on or before

June 16, 2020. Within 10 days after the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of

law, any party may file a request for specified additional or amended findings or conclusions.

The trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are appropriate within 10 days

after such a request is filed. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and any

additional and amended findings or conclusions, shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record to be filed with this court on or before August 1, 2020.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings

and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion

to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own

motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Peter Kelly______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Date: ___April 16, 2020____

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.