In the Estate of Rose Mary Adell Rentfro v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 13, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00134-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00134-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF ROSE MARY ADELL RENTFRO, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. 24P225, Honorable Pat Deen, Presiding

August 13, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

This appeal arises from a will contest in Parker County, Texas. Appellant, Joe

Vernon, challenges the trial court’s denial of his application to probate the Will of Rose

Mary Adell Rentfro. He raises four issues: (1) the exclusion of his witnesses based on an

alleged failure to timely disclose them; (2) the refusal to admit the Will, which contained

a self-proving affidavit; (3) the denial of his right to testify; and (4) the lack of notice of the

probate hearing under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a. We affirm.1

1 This appeal was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to the Texas Supreme

Court’s docket equalization authority. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. In case of conflict, we apply the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022). ANALYSIS

Each of Vernon’s issues turns on proceedings that occurred during the trial court

hearing. Yet Vernon has not provided a reporter’s record. Without that record, we are

unable to evaluate the circumstances underlying the court’s rulings or whether Vernon

preserved any of his complaints for appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.2

On the first issue, Vernon argues the court erred in excluding his witnesses based

on untimely disclosure. However, without a transcript, we cannot determine whether

Vernon presented argument or evidence showing he properly served disclosures, or

whether the trial court considered and rejected such evidence.

As to the second issue, Vernon contends the Will should have been admitted as

self-proved. The trial court’s findings indicate it rejected the Will’s authenticity and

deemed the affidavit insufficient. But again, the record is silent as to what evidence or

testimony Vernon offered in support of the Will, or whether he objected to the court’s

ruling.

In his third issue, Vernon asserts he was improperly excluded from testifying. The

trial court found he was incompetent to testify because he was a devisee under the Will.

While that may bar testimony about certain matters, it does not necessarily preclude all

testimony. Yet there is no offer of proof or indication of what Vernon intended to say, nor

can we tell whether he raised a timely objection or request to testify.

2 An inquiry by the Clerk of this Court determined there was no court reporter at the hearing, no

audio recording of the hearing, and therefore no transcript can be made available for our review. 2 Finally, Vernon complains he received no notice of the hearing under Rule 21a.

The clerk’s record contains no motion for continuance or objection. Whether he raised

this issue at the hearing is unknown and cannot be determined in the absence of a

reporter’s record.

The burden is on the appellant to present a record sufficient to show reversible

error. Chau Ong v. Yu Ting Wang, No. 02-24-00511-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3860, at

*7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 5, 2025, no pet. h.) (citing Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782

S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)). Without a reporter’s record, we must presume

the trial court’s rulings were supported by the evidence and that no reversible error

occurred. Id.

All of Vernon’s issues are overruled.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Alex Yarbrough Justice