|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-09-00076-CV
______________________________
ROBERT MYRON MOORE, JR., AND
REBECCA ROSE MOORE, Appellants
V.
DON HAWKINS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court
Fannin County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV-09-39086
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert M. Moore, Jr., and Rebecca Rose Moore appeal an order declaring the cancellation of their notice of lis pendens for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 12.007 of the Texas Property Code[1] and awarding money damages to Don Hawkins. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 12.007 (Vernon Supp. 2010).
Their points of error on appeal complain that the trial court erred in failing to hear arguments upon their “Objection to Plaintiff’s Amended Petition and Petition to Remove Lis Pendens and Cloud on Title to Land” and “Counterclaim to Plaintiff’s Amended Petition to Remove Lis Pendens and Cloud on Title to Land”[2] at a July 30, 2009, hearing. They also complain that the trial court erred in allowing Hawkins “great latitude in the scope of evidence and testimony presented while restricting,” their cross-examination, and in interrupting the hearing to entertain an unrelated divorce proceeding.
Appellate courts must base their decisions on the record as made and brought forward, not on a record that should have been made or that could have been made. Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 411 (Tex. 1998). Examination of any of the Moores’ points of error require a transcript of the court’s hearing. It was the Moores’ burden to properly initiate the completion of a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error. Aguero v. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d 236, 237 (Tex. App.––El Paso 2006, no pet.); see Willie v. Donovan & Watkins, Inc., No. 01-03-00890-CV, 2005 WL 375328, at *2 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). This Court has determined that no transcript of the reporter’s record was requested by the Moores. Because the Moores have failed to request a transcript of the hearing and have raised points of error on appeal involving matters omitted from the record before us, their actions have prevented us from adequately addressing their dispute. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d at 237. “By so inhibiting an appellate court, the appellant waives his complaint.” Id.; see also Southland Lloyd’s Ins. Co. v. Tomberlain, 919 S.W.2d 822, 832 n.6 (Tex. App.––Texarkana 1996, writ denied).[3]
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: October 28, 2010
Date Decided: October 29, 2010
[1]Specifically, the notice of lis pendens was not supported by either a pending eminent domain proceeding or an action involving title to real property. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 12.007.
[2]The Moores also argued that the court erred in “first refus[ing] to allow [these documents] to be filed and then allowing filing.”
[3]Moreover, “[a]n appellant has the burden to bring forth sufficient record and authority to support reversible error.” Rosenblatt v. City of Houston, 31 S.W.3d 399, 407 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied). A point of error not supported by authority is waived. Id. (citing Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d 927, 934 (Tex. 1983)). The only cited authority in the Moores’ brief is the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.