Bryan Miller// Claudia Miller v. Claudia Miller// Cross-Appellee, Bryan Miller
This text of Bryan Miller// Claudia Miller v. Claudia Miller// Cross-Appellee, Bryan Miller (Bryan Miller// Claudia Miller v. Claudia Miller// Cross-Appellee, Bryan Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00530-CV
Appellant, Bryan Miller// Cross-Appellant, Claudia Miller
v.
Appellee, Claudia Miller// Cross-Appellee, Bryan Miller
FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-21-001119, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant and cross-appellee Bryan Miller challenges the trial court’s corrected
final decree of divorce, signed on September 13, 2023.1 Bryan has filed a motion requesting that
we abate the appeal for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law that were not issued by
the trial court after he requested them and gave notice that they were past due. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 296; id. R. 297. Bryan certified that he tried but was unable to confer with Claudia’s attorney
about the motion. Although more than ten days have passed since Bryan filed his motion,
Claudia has not filed a response.
The family code provides that, upon timely request, the trial court shall make
written findings of fact and conclusions of law when the trial court has rendered judgment
1 Because the parties share the same last name, for clarity, we will refer to the parties by their first names. dividing the parties’ estate in a divorce suit, when the court varies from the standard possession
order, and when the court renders a child-support order. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 6.711, 153.258,
154.130. When the trial court fails to make fact findings and conclusions of law after a party
has complied with the rules in making a request, the error is presumed harmful. Martinez v.
Martinez, No. 03-16-00818-CV, 2017 WL 3897309, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 25, 2017,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (abatement) (citing, in part, Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29,
29 (Tex. 1996)). Error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case to
the appellate court. Id. (citing Tenery, 932 S.W.2d at 30); see also Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(2). In
light of the presumption, and from the record before us, we conclude that Bryan will be harmed
from the trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and that such
findings and conclusions are necessary for a proper presentation of his appeal.
Accordingly, we grant Bryan’s motion, abate this appeal, and remand this cause
to the trial court for the entry of the necessary findings. A supplemental record containing the
findings and conclusions shall be filed with this Court thirty days from the date of this order.
This appeal will be reinstated after the supplemental clerk’s record is filed.
It is ordered on November 10, 2023.
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis
Abated and Remanded
Filed: November 10, 2023
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bryan Miller// Claudia Miller v. Claudia Miller// Cross-Appellee, Bryan Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-miller-claudia-miller-v-claudia-miller-cross-appellee-bryan-texapp-2023.