In the Matter of the Marriage of Brandon Waters and Stacey Waters and in the Interest of E.W., L.W., L.W., and F.W., Children v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Matter of the Marriage of Brandon Waters and Stacey Waters and in the Interest of E.W., L.W., L.W., and F.W., Children v. the State of Texas (In the Matter of the Marriage of Brandon Waters and Stacey Waters and in the Interest of E.W., L.W., L.W., and F.W., Children v. the State of Texas) 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
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00057-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BRANDON WATERS AND STACEY WATERS AND IN THE INTEREST OF E.W., L.W., L.W., AND F.W., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 415th District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV22-1343, Honorable Graham Quisenberry, Presiding
July 22, 2025
ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 1 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Stacy Waters appeals from the final decree of divorce entered by the trial court. It
adjudicated the division of the marital estate and child conservatorship, among other
things. Through one issue, she contends the trial court erred by failing to enter timely
requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. We abate and remand the cause.
Background
Brandon and Stacey married on October 7, 1995, and had multiple children over
the course of their marriage. Stacey homeschooled their children while Brandon owned
1 Because this matter was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals, we apply its precedent
when it conflicts with that of the Seventh Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. and operated a motor vehicle repair shop. He filed for divorce in 2022 following several
years of separation.
Stacey made allegations of a sexual nature against Brandon. There were also
accusations of his sexual misconduct with their older daughter, possible physical
misconduct toward another child, his preoccupation with adolescent females, and his
addiction to pornography. There were also allegations and evidence about Stacey’s
suffering with mental health issues and fabricating various allegations against Brandon.
The court held a final hearing during the Summer of 2024. On December 6, 2024,
Stacey filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 2 The trial court signed
the final decree on December 13, 2024. Stacey also timely filed a notice of past due
findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 6, 2025. Despite this, the trial court
issued neither findings nor conclusions.
Analysis
Through one issue, Stacey argues the trial court had a mandatory duty to file
findings of fact and conclusions of law once timely requested. Its failure to file such
findings, she argues, harmed her ability to prosecute the appeal and entitled her to a new
trial on matters of custody and property division. 3 We sustain the issue in part.
Upon a timely request, the trial court in a bench trial must file written findings of
fact and conclusions of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 297; Nev. Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Andrews
Indep. Sch. Dist., 225 S.W.3d 68, 77 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.). Because the
trial court’s duty to file same is mandatory, the failure to do so is presumptively harmful
2 The request was filed prematurely, as Stacey acknowledges. However, when such a request is filed prematurely, it is deemed filed on the date the judgment was signed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 306c. 3 Stacey is not requesting a new trial concerning the grant of divorce.
2 when all procedural requisites were performed by the requesting party; this is not
necessarily true, though, if “the record before the appellate court affirmatively shows that
the complaining party has suffered no injury.” Czarkowski-Golejewski v. Wilson, No. 07-
24-00127-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2765, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 19, 2024,
order) (per curiam). For instance, if the trial court’s reasons for its judgment are apparent
from the record, the presumption of harm is rebutted. Id. On the other hand, an appellant
is harmed if there are two or more possible grounds on which the trial court could have
ruled, and the appellant is left to guess at the basis for the trial court’s ruling. Czarkowski-
Golejewski, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 2765, at *2. Finally, where the omission is harmful,
our remedy is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to issue the absent findings.
Id. at *2-3; see also AD Villarai, LLC v. Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132, 136 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam)
(so holding).
Our review of the appellate record revealed controversy over both the just and right
division of the marital estate and custody of the children. 4 These matters were not
undisputed, and the precise reasons for the trial court’s rulings are not obvious from the
record. Compare Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. Kahn, No. 03-24-00088-CV, 2025 Tex. App.
LEXIS 3473, at *12 (Tex. App.—Austin May 22, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (finding no
harm when trial court announced its reasons for its ruling in open court, including the
specific evidence on which it relied). So too are there issues concerning the credibility of
4 For instance, despite allegations and evidence of Brandon’s sexually abusing Stacey and at least
one child, the trial court nonetheless appointed him sole managing conservator of the children. See J.A.S. v. A.R.D., No. 02-17-00403-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 344, at *9-10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 17, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that “[b]y statute, it is in the best interest of the child for the child’s parents to be appointed joint managing conservators” and citing TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.131(a), (b) as creating a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of a child’s parents as joint managing conservators is in the child’s best interest).
3 witnesses, the resolution of which could affect the outcome. Therefore, we cannot say
the record affirmatively illustrates that Stacey suffered no harm due to the absence of
findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Hamlett v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline,
No. 07-16-00256-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11488, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 24,
2016, order) (per curiam) (remanding for findings where record did not affirmatively show
that the appellant suffered no harm because of the trial court’s failure to file the requested
findings); see also In re Marriage of Gaither, No. 07-24-00070-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS
5702, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 8, 2024, per curiam order) (abating and remanding
the matter because the decree’s orders on possession of and access to the child were
not undisputed and the reasons for the trial court’s rulings were not obvious).
Accordingly, we employ the proper remedy to address the default at bar, abate the
appeal, remand the cause to the trial court, and order the trial court to execute those
findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to support its final divorce decree. See
TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 297; TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4(b). The trial court is further directed to
execute those findings and conclusions in writing and by September 2, 2025. It is also
ordered to cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk’s
record and cause said supplemental record to be filed with the clerk of this court by
September 2, 2025. Should further time be needed by the trial court to comply, it must
request same of this court in writing before September 2, 2025.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of the Marriage of Brandon Waters and Stacey Waters and in the Interest of E.W., L.W., L.W., and F.W., Children v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-brandon-waters-and-stacey-waters-and-in-texapp-2025.