Anthony Moore v. Jo Ann Moore

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 04-24-00367-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00367-CV

Anthony MOORE, Appellant

v.

Jo Ann MOORE, Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-04-0279-CVA Honorable Bob Brendel, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 25, 2026

AFFIRMED

Anthony Moore appeals from a final decree of divorce and challenges the division of

property. Despite repeated warnings and a considerable delay, Anthony failed to request and pay

for the reporter’s record. Because each of his appellate issues requires us to review the trial

transcript, we affirm. 04-24-00367-CV

BACKGROUND

Anthony and Jo Ann Moore married in 2003. After two decades of marriage, Jo Ann hired

an attorney and filed for divorce, alleging the marriage had become “insupportable” due to

“discord or conflict of personalities.” Anthony responded with a pro se petition for divorce.

Following a temporary orders hearing, the trial court ordered Anthony to pay temporary spousal

maintenance to Jo Ann in the amount of five hundred dollars per month. The court also made

orders for the exclusive use of certain property while the divorce was pending.

On December 13, 2023, a final hearing occurred. Following the hearing, the trial court

signed a final decree of divorce reflecting that both parties appeared at the hearing—Anthony pro

se and Jo Ann through her attorney—and that a court reporter was present. The decree divided the

marital estate, including Anthony’s federal military retirement benefits, awarded each party one or

more of the vehicles remaining in the estate, allocated personal effects and household furnishings,

divided cash on hand and bank accounts, apportioned miscellaneous debts, and awarded spousal

maintenance to Jo Ann. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Anthony disputes the trial court’s findings concerning the grounds on which the divorce

was granted, the award of spousal maintenance, the characterization of separate property, the

alleged incorrect calculation for the division of federal military retirement pay, and, more broadly,

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s determinations. Anthony also makes several

arguments that the trial court erred by awarding separate property to Jo Ann because she failed to

plead a claim to the property.

A trial court has broad discretion to divide the marital estate. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d

696, 698 (Tex. 1981). We may reverse a division only where an abuse of discretion is shown. Id.

-2- 04-24-00367-CV

This is a fact-intensive inquiry and we “presume that the trial court properly exercised its discretion

in reaching its decision.” Nunez v. Nunez, No. 04-22-00362-CV, 2024 WL 3054038, at *1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio June 20, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. FAM. CODE § 7.001).

Because “the court is not required to divide the property equally,” even if a trial court

mischaracterizes property, we may not reverse unless it is shown that the mischaracterization

rendered the overall distribution of property unjust and unfair. Attaguile v. Attaguile, 584 S.W.3d

163, 176 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.).

1 Because appellant failed to request a reporter’s record, we must presume all evidence supports the judgment.

We must account for the fact that no reporter’s record was filed. The court notified Anthony

on August 20, 2024, that he was required to provide written proof within ten days, showing that:

he had submitted a written request to the court reporter; and he had paid, or made arrangements to

pay, the court reporter’s fee for or that he was entitled to proceed without payment.

Anthony filed two documents in response. First, he asserted that the reporter’s record

contained no relevant evidence, would be of no value, would not aid the appellate court’s

decision‑making process, and therefore he would not request it. He further stated that Jo Ann was

free to provide a reporter’s record if she believed it would be relevant. He also argued that the

reporter’s record is not the controlling source for determining whether the trial court correctly

applied the law. According to Anthony, his complaints focus on the trial court’s legal errors and

Jo Ann has had every opportunity to rebut his arguments. Thus, in the absence of a rebuttal, the

appellate court should accept his assertions as true “by law.”

It was Anthony’s burden—as the appellant asking this court to reverse a final judgment—

to provide an appellate record demonstrating reversible error. Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782

S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990); Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.

-3- 04-24-00367-CV

1987). Without a reporter’s record, we must presume that the evidence presented supports the trial

court’s judgment. Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2006, pet. denied); Sandoval v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 25 S.W.3d 720, 722 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). We apply this presumption because, without a complete

reporter’s record, we cannot review all the evidence considered by the factfinder or apply the

appropriate legal and factual sufficiency standards. See Englander Co. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d

806, 807 (Tex. 1968).

Each of Anthony’s complaints require evidence to review on appeal—either because the

complaint challenges evidence directly or because, even if we assume error, Anthony must show

the error was harmful. No reporter’s record was filed thus we cannot review sufficiency challenges

or whether any supposed error was harmless. Anthony’s issues are overruled.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

Velia J. Meza, Justice

1 All pending motions are denied.

-4-