Amerson, Michael Scott v. Amerson, Catherine Cornelia Steemers

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 3, 2002
• Docket: 14-01-00625-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 3, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed July 3, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-01-00625-CV

MICHAEL SCOTT AMERSON, Appellant

V.

CATHERINE CORNELIA STEEMERS AMERSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 00-29049

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Michael Scott Amerson appeals pro se from a divorce decree, asserting twenty-four points of error.  Finding each of his complaints either to be without merit or unsubstantiated by the appellate record, we affirm.

In points of error 1, 2, and 4, appellant alleges the trial court failed to accommodate his visual impairment in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  His primary complaint appears to be that the trial court promised to have someone read the final decree of divorce to him, but did not do so.  His brief shows that he is familiar with the terms of that decree but fails to explain how he has been prejudiced by the alleged failure.  He fails to cite any other instances in the record where ADA violations occurred and made no formal bill of exceptions to establish such allegations.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.2 (providing for proof of matters not reflected in record).  Points 1, 2, and 4 are overruled. 

In point of error 3, appellant complains that no reporter=s record was made of the hearing on entry of final judgment some two weeks after the parties= divorce trial.  Appellant fails to provide any evidence that he made a timely request for such a record, or provide a formal bill of exceptions to establish his claim.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.2.  Moreover, as it does not appear that any evidence was introduced at this hearing, there is no indication how he was prejudiced by the alleged failure.  Point of error 3 is overruled.

In point of error 5, appellant complains his own counsel misinformed him about the nature of one of several pretrial hearings.  He does not explain how his attorney=s alleged error constitutes reversible error by the trial court.  Point of error 5 is overruled.

In his points of error 6 through 8, appellant complains of alleged errors in the temporary orders entered by the trial court.  These temporary orders did not survive entry of the final decree, and cannot form the basis of an appeal.   See Coke v. Coke, 802 S.W.2d 270, 273-74 (Tex. App.CDallas 1990, writ denied).  Points of error 6 through 8 are overruled. 

In points of error 9 through 17, appellant alleges the trial court erred in Aprompting@ his minor daughter=s testimony during the divorce trial, and attacks the property division and child custody provisions of the final decree of divorce.  Although appellant filed an excerpt from the in-chambers testimony of Holly Amerson, no other record of the divorce trial proceedings has been filed, nor has he complied with the requirements for a limited appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6.  Thus, we must presume the judgment is supported by the omitted trial evidence, and we do not reach the merits of these points of error.  See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (holding that in the absence of a complete statement of facts, it is presumed on appeal that omitted evidence supports the trial court=s judgment); Brown v. McGuyer Homebuilders, Inc., 58 S.W.3d 172, 174-75 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).  Points of error 9 through 17 are overruled.

In point of error 18, appellant contends the trial court violated his civil and constitutional rights by denying his motion for new trial.  As his sole legal authority in support of this allegation, appellant cites us to the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause, and otherwise does not brief his argument.  Because this is insufficient for us to understand his complaint, it presents nothing for our review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(h); Steptoe v. True, 38 S.W.3d 213, 214 n.1 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).  Point of error 18 is overruled. 

In points 19 through 21, appellant complains of alleged errors in the reporter=s records made in hearings held before and after trial.  To preserve these complaints, appellant had to request correction at a hearing in the trial court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(e).  Because he did not, he has waived his complaints.  Moreover, he does not indicate how these hearings before and after trial affected the judgment, which we must presume was based on the evidence at trial (and as to which we have no record).  Points of error 19 through 21 are overruled.

In point of error 22, appellant complains of omission from the clerk=s records of (1) a letter from his doctor establishing his visual impairment, and (2) a news article concerning the resignation of former Harris County Attorney Mike Fleming.  Appellant does not indicate how either of these alleged omissions harmed him.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1 (stating harmless error standard).  Point of error 20 is overruled.

In points of error 23 and 24, appellant alleges the trial court used trickery, coercion, and retaliation against him during certain pretrial and post-trial hearings.  Again, he does not identify these alleged occurrences or indicate how they resulted in entry of an erroneous judgment.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1.  Points of error 23 and 24 are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/       

Scott Brister

Chief Justice

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed July 3, 2002.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Anderson and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).