Elizabeth Marie Conn v. Devin Patrick Conn

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 30, 2025
Docket03-24-00185-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Elizabeth Marie Conn v. Devin Patrick Conn (Elizabeth Marie Conn v. Devin Patrick Conn) 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.

Bluebook
Elizabeth Marie Conn v. Devin Patrick Conn, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00185-CV

Elizabeth Marie Conn, Appellant

v.

Devin Patrick Conn, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-FM-22-000423, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

After twice abating this appeal on appellant’s unopposed motions for filing of a

supplemental reporter’s record containing exhibits and a hearing transcript that appellant says are

currently missing from the record, this Court received appellant’s notice that the parties dispute

whether “certain exhibits were offered into evidence and whether the court reporter can create a

supplemental reporter’s record of the disputed exhibits as identified by the court reporter.”1

Appellant asserts that the missing exhibits and transcript she identified are necessary to the

resolution of this appeal from the trial court’s final decree of divorce. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.6(f)(3).

When a portion of a reporter’s record is lost or destroyed, an appellant is entitled

to a new trial if, among other requirements, a significant portion of the court reporter’s notes and

1 The court reporter notified this Court that the parties’ attorneys were trying to sort through exhibits that were not provided at the time of trial. records has been lost or destroyed, the lost or destroyed portion of the reporter’s record is

necessary to the appeal’s resolution, and the lost or destroyed portion of the reporter’s record

cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties. See id. R. 34.6(f). We therefore reinstate and

abate this appeal and remand this cause to the trial court for determination of whether any

exhibits admitted into evidence are missing and whether those exhibits and any missing

transcript can be replaced by agreement of the parties or with a copy accurately duplicating with

reasonable certainty the originals. See id. R. 34.6(f)(4). A supplemental reporter’s record

containing the trial court’s determination as well as copies of any missing exhibits and transcript,

if available, shall be filed with this Court by May 30, 2025. This appeal will be reinstated after

the supplemental reporter’s record is filed.

It is ordered on April 30, 2025.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Abated and Remanded

Filed: April 30, 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elizabeth Marie Conn v. Devin Patrick Conn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elizabeth-marie-conn-v-devin-patrick-conn-texapp-2025.