In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00356-CV
___________________________
MALLORY YORK JR., Appellant
V.
MAKEATHA COOPER-YORK, Appellee
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-677587-20
Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION
I concur with the majority but write separately to address the importance of a
trial court’s compliance with its mandatory duty to file findings of fact and
conclusions of law when the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure have been complied with
by the requesting party.
When findings of fact and conclusions of law are properly requested, the trial
court has a mandatory duty to file them. Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d
768, 772 (Tex. 1989). Because a trial court’s duty to file findings and conclusions is
mandatory, the failure to respond when all requests have been properly made is
presumed harmful, unless—as here—the record before the appellate court
affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no injury. See id. That is,
when a trial court fails to file findings of fact and conclusions of law despite the timely
filing of a request and a notice of past due findings, the error is only harmless when it
does not prevent the requesting party from properly presenting its case to the court of
appeals or supreme court. Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Peña, 442 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex.
2014).
The reason that findings and conclusions are so important is that a trial court’s
findings of fact have the same force and dignity as a jury’s answers to jury questions.
Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1991). Further, they narrow
the bases of judgment to only a portion of the multiple claims and defenses in the
case, thereby reducing the number of contentions that the appellant must raise on
2
appeal. In re D.H., No. 02-05-00179-CV, 2006 WL 133523, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Jan. 19, 2006, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Timely requested findings of
fact and conclusions of law, when they are filed by the trial court, conserve appellate
judicial resources that are funded by taxpayer dollars.
When the trial court fails to make findings and conclusions upon a proper
request and the facts in a case are disputed, rebutting every presumed finding on
appeal can be so burdensome that it effectively prevents the appellant from properly
presenting its case to the appellate court. Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d
132, 135 (Tex. 2017); see Cherne Indus., Inc., 763 S.W.2d at 772 (stating that the trial
court’s failure to respond when all requests for findings and conclusions have been
properly made is presumed harmful unless the record affirmatively shows that the
complaining party has suffered no injury); see also Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(2); Larry F.
Smith, Inc. v. Weber Co., 110 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. App.––Dallas 2003, pet. denied)
(explaining that appellant has been harmed if “forced to guess” why the trial court
ruled against him, which is more likely in cases with multiple grounds of recovery or
multiple defenses). The participants of our judicial system—taxpayers, voters, or
otherwise—deserve better.
The rules governing proper and timely requests for findings and conclusions
can be confusing and trap the unwary appellant. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 296–299a.
But when an appellant successfully navigates through the requirements of Rules 296
and 297 and complies with the Rules’ requirements, that appellant deserves, in turn,
3
for the trial court to comply with its mandatory duty to make the findings and
conclusions requested. To promote public confidence in the judiciary and preserve its
integrity, judges should set the example. At minimum, they should be expected to
follow the rules.
Although I concur in the result, I would first abate this appeal back to the trial
court and require the trial judge to do her job.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Delivered: July 1, 2021
4
Mallory York, Jr. v. Makeatha Cooper-York
Combined Opinion