Opinion
01-22-00410-CV
06-22-2023
EMMANUEL OFFIONG JAMES, Appellant v. MIRIAM SEBASTIAN JAMES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 116151-F
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Terry Adams Chief Justice
Appellant Emmanuel Offiong James ("Emmanuel"), acting pro se, appeals from the trial court's entry of a final divorce decree. In his sole issue, Emmanuel argues that the trial court erred in failing to equitably distribute marital property under Chapters 3 and 7 of the Texas Family Code. We affirm.
Background
Emmanuel and appellee Miriam Sebastian James ("Miriam") were married on February 3, 2017 and separated on October 5, 2021. On January 14, 2022, Emmanuel petitioned for divorce. In his petition, Emmanuel did not list any community property. In a later filed document entitled "Summary Jud[g]ment," however, Emmanuel requested that the trial court grant him a divorce and divide the following "community properties 50/50 to both parties":
1. Family home located at 3404 Jester Court, Pearland, Texas 77581;
2. All retirement benefits;
3. Proceeds from business investments;
4. 2019 Toyota Tundra; and
5. 2020 Nissan Versa. Emmanuel also requested that the trial court award him spousal maintenance.
On May 31, 2022, following a bench trial, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce. The final divorce decree reflected that neither Emmanuel nor Miriam asked for a jury. The final divorce decree also recited that "[a] Court reporter did not record today's hearing because the parties agreed not to make a record."
In the final divorce decree, the trial court found that Emmanuel had no separate property that was acquired before the marriage. The trial court found that the 2019 Toyota Tundra was community property and awarded that vehicle to Emmanuel as his "sole and separate property." The trial court also awarded Emmanuel "100% of all retirement funds in [Emmanuel's] name alone."
As to Miriam, the trial court found that Miriam owned the following property as her separate property:
1. 14012 Mountain Sage Ct., Pearland, Texas, 77584; and
2. 2021 Volkswagen Atlas
The trial court also found that the property at 3404 Jester Court, Pearland, Texas 77581 was community property and awarded that property to Miriam as her "sole and separate property." The trial court similarly awarded Miriam "100% of all retirement funds in [Miriam's] name alone." Finally, the trial court ordered each party to pay the debts in their own names.
Both Emmanuel and Miriam signed the final divorce decree indicating that they "agree[d] to this Final Decree of Divorce in form and substance." The same day the final divorce decree was entered, Emmanuel filed his notice of appeal. In it, he contested the trial court's division of community property, requesting that the properties he identified in his summary judgment filing be divided equally.
Division of Marital Property
In his sole issue on appeal, Emmanuel challenges the trial court's division of the marital property. Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have, but failed to, equitably divide the community property listed in his "Summary Jud[g]ment" as provided for in Chapters 3 and 7 of the Texas Family Code.
Miriam did not file a brief.
We review a trial court's division of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Brown v. Wokocha, 526 S.W.3d 504, 507 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). The trial court has broad discretion when dividing the marital estate at divorce. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981). If the evidence demonstrates a reasonable basis for doing so, a trial court may order a disproportionate division of the community property. Id. at 698-99 & n.1. "To disturb a trial court's division of property, a party must show that the court clearly abused its discretion by a division or an order that is manifestly unjust or unfair." Barras v. Barras, 396 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts unreasonably or arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Brown, 526 S.W.3d at 507. A trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is some evidence of a substantive and probative nature to support the decision. Barras, 396 S.W.3d at 164.
Although Emmanuel challenges the trial court's division of marital property, a reporter's record is necessary to properly address this issue. As the appellant, Emmanuel bears the burden to bring forward a sufficient record to show that the trial court erred. See Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990)). Failure to obtain a reporter's record of the hearing makes it impossible to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. Brown Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Mountbatten Sur. Co., 377 S.W.3d 40, 44 n1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 2012, no pet.). Consequently, when there is not a reporter's record and there are no findings of fact, we must assume that the trial court heard sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings in support of its judgment. Nicholson, 226 S.W.3d at 583.
As noted above, the trial court's final divorce decree reflects that "[a] Court reporter did not record today's hearing because the parties agreed not to make a record." This is confirmed by the trial court's docket sheet, which states:
05/31/2022 Set on Merits. Parties appeared and amounted agmt. Record-waived. Evidence presented. Divorce granted. No children of the marriage. Property divided per decree; Name change granted to Udokah. Pronounced and rendered this date. Decree entered this date. KRH
The appellate record therefore demonstrates that there is not a reporter's record because Emmanuel agreed to waive a record of the divorce proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 13.1(a) ("The official court reporter or court recorder must . . . unless excused by agreement of the parties, attend court sessions and make a full record of the proceedings[.]").
On appeal, the court reporter certified that there was not a reporter's record taken. Additionally, nothing in the record indicates that Emmanuel requested findings of fact from the trial court. Without a reporter's record of the divorce proceedings, or findings of fact from the trial court, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the marital property, and we must assume that the missing evidence supports the trial court's judgment. See Brown Mech. Servs., Inc., 377 S.W.3d at 44 n.1; Nicholson, 226 S.W.3d at 583.
See also Cruz v. Cruz, No. 14-19-00016-CV, 2019 WL 2942630, at *4 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 9, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (overruling appellant's challenge to trial court's division of marital property because appellate record did not contain reporter's record from divorce proceedings or findings of fact from trial court); Brown v. Wokocha, 526 S.W.3d 504, 508 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (holding that without findings of fact, "it is impossible for [us] to determine that the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the community property"); cf. Benjamin v. Benjamin, No. 01-10-01003-CV, 2013 WL 4507848, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 22, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh'g) (holding that appellant failed to preserve challenge to trial court's division of marital property because he failed to request record or object to court reporter's failure to record divorce proceeding).
Accordingly, we overrule Emmanuel's sole issue.
On January 17, 2023, in response to our late brief notice to Miriam, Emmanuel filed a letter with this Court requesting that we "award to the Appellant a final judgment and share the Community Properties 50/50 to both parties." He also requested that Miriam pay him "spousal support in the amount deemed fit for the damages [he] has suffered and is still suffering." To the extent that this letter can be construed as a motion seeking relief in addition to that sought in his appeal, we deny that motion.
Conclusion
Based on the record before us, we affirm the trial court's judgment in all things.