Roderick Mangum v. Sitonia Mangum

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 2, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-01118-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 31, 2023

In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01118-CV

RODERICK MANGUM, Appellant V. SITONIA MANGUM, Appellee

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-18124

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Carlyle The parties (Roderick and Sitonia Mangum) were married then sought a

divorce. After a bench trial concerning the division of the marital estate, the court

signed a final decree of divorce on July 20, 2022 and awarded sixty percent of their

home to appellee Sitonia and forty percent to appellant Roderick. In three issues,

Roderick timely challenges (1) the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of

law, (2) the trial court’s ruling denying him the opportunity to testify, and (3) the

trial court’s disproportionate award to Sitonia. We affirm in this memorandum

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. In his first issue, Roderick challenges the trial court’s failure to file findings

of fact and conclusions of law despite his timely request and a subsequent notice of

late findings of fact. Although his original request was timely filed, the notice of late

findings was filed more than 30 days later and did not preserve this issue for

appellate review. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296–297; Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co., Inc.

v. Zavala County, 682 S.W.2d 254, 255–56 (Tex. 1984); In re Guthrie, 45 S.W.3d

719, 722 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We overrule Roderick’s first issue.

In his second issue, Roderick challenges the trial court’s ruling that denied

him the opportunity to testify. However, Roderick was not present in the courtroom

(or even the county) at the time of trial and his counsel did not object to the court’s

ruling; instead, his counsel offered Roderick’s testimony via telephone to rebut

Sitonia’s allegations of cruelty. The absence of an objection to the trial court’s ruling

means Roderick has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Garcia v. Semler, 663 S.W.3d 270, 278 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022,

no pet.). We overrule Roderick’s second issue.

In his third issue, Roderick challenges the trial court’s apportionment of the

marital property. When there are no findings of fact despite a timely request, we

presume that a trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment.

See Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex. 2017) (citing BMC

Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002)). A party may

rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the record evidence does not support a

–2– presumed finding. Id. As the party complaining of the division of community

property, Roderick bore the burden of “showing from the evidence in the record that

the trial court’s division of the community estate was so unjust and unfair as to

constitute an abuse of discretion.” Slicker v. Slicker, 464 S.W.3d 850, 858 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citing In re Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d

373, 382–83 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)).

Roderick’s appellate brief on this point only contains two citations to the

record; the first shows Sitonia requested a disproportionate share of the marital estate

and the second shows the parties stipulated Sitonia’s credit was so poor she could

not qualify for a mortgage on the home. When viewed separately or collectively, this

sparse evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the trial court

properly exercised its discretion when dividing the marital assets. See Murff v. Murff,

615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981). We overrule his third issue.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Cory L. Carlyle/ 221118f.p05 CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

RODERICK MANGUM, Appellant On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-01118-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-18124. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. SITONIA MANGUM, Appellee Justices Smith and Kennedy participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee SITONIA MANGUM recover her costs of this appeal from appellant RODERICK MANGUM.

Judgment entered this 31st day of October 2023.

–4–