Background
Christie Lynn Terrell and Matthew Duke married in 2018 and had one child. After Duke petitioned for divorce in 2020, the parties tried their claims to a jury over several months in 2022. The final decree divided their property and debts, appointed them joint managing conservators, gave Duke the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within Bexar County, ordered Terrell to pay child support, changed the child’s name, rejected Terrell’s tort claims, and awarded Duke $300,000 on his tort claims.
Terrell appealed and raised thirty-three issues. She sought preparation of the reporter’s record without cost, but the trial court found that she could afford it, and the court of appeals affirmed that determination in 2024. Despite two orders directing her to show that she had paid or arranged payment, Terrell did not do so, and no reporter’s record of the trial was filed. The consolidated appeals were later stayed during Terrell’s bankruptcy and reinstated in 2025. Duke did not brief his cross-appeal, so the court treated it as abandoned.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the final divorce decree. Most of Terrell’s challenges—including attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence, property division, tort findings, evidentiary rulings, conservatorship, the child’s name change, alleged misconduct, and enforcement of a premarital agreement—required a reporter’s record. Because Terrell did not provide one, the court presumed the omitted evidence supported the judgment and concluded that she could not establish preserved or harmful error.
The clerk’s record resolved the remaining reviewable issues against Terrell. Duke’s amended pleading gave fair notice that he sought exclusive conservatorship rights and child support, even though the pleading was styled as an original divorce petition rather than a modification petition. Terrell also failed to preserve her judicial-bias complaint because her recusal request was unverified and untimely. Her claim that Duke later refused to sell the marital home concerned enforcement of the decree, not a basis for reversing it.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must provide a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error; without the reporter’s record, an appellate court generally presumes the omitted trial evidence supports the judgment.
- Under Texas’s fair-notice pleading standard, the substance of a pleading can provide adequate notice of requested conservatorship and support relief even if the pleading is not formally styled as a modification petition.
- A judicial-recusal complaint must comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, including its verification and timeliness requirements.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the decisive role of record preparation in Texas civil appeals. Even numerous challenges involving constitutional claims, evidentiary rulings, family-law determinations, and substantial tort damages cannot produce reversal when the appellant fails to supply the trial record needed to evaluate preservation, error, and harm.
It also distinguishes an appeal from a post-decree enforcement proceeding: alleged noncompliance with a divorce decree ordinarily must be presented to the trial court through enforcement procedures rather than used to attack the decree itself on appeal.