Opinion issued July 21, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-25-00082-CV
ROBERT F. STRANGE AND LANA STRANGE, Appellants
V.
VILLAGE PLACE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 61st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017-46730
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This 2017 lawsuit about failure to pay annual maintenance assessments went
unresolved for years before finally making it to a non-jury trial in October 2024.
The homeowner’s association moved for a default judgment (to no avail) and for summary judgment (also to no avail). Eventually, the case went to a bench trial,
after which the court found for the association. The final judgment awards past due
assessments, forecloses on a lien, and awards the association attorney’s fees.
Appearing in this Court pro se, appellants Robert and Lana Strange contend
that the judge allowed fraudulent documents to come into evidence. Unfortunately,
appellants have not brought forward a record of the trial, although they have sought
to overcome the lack of a record by attaching documents to their brief as evidence.
Their brief explains their legal position as follows:
The crux of Appellants argument is that Appellees presented
false evidence at Trial as shown in Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 8 and further
that Appellees representative presented false testimony at trial all of
which was contrary to Appellees accounting statement given to
Appellants in November of 2017 (Appeal Exhibit A) and therefore a
New Trial should be ordered or the judgment of the Trial Court
overturned.
Further Appellants seek to have Texas Statute 209.0063 be
properly applied to the October 2017 payment of $10,010.76 which was
made to Appellees and that Appellees accounting records be made to
properly reflect that all amount[s] due to Appellees through the year
2017 were in fact paid and that Cause 2017-46730 became moot in
October of 2017 when the $10,010.76 was paid and further that all
claims prior to payment of the $10,010.76 were barred by res judicata.
Further Appellants seek to have all claims not pled in their
original or amended pleadings such as HOA assessments for 2018
through 2024 be deemed void and uncollectable by Cause 2017-46730
and inadmissible since such claims were never pled before trial and
because Texas Statutes preclude filing a lawsuit in 2017 for amounts
that did not come due until the years 2018 through 2024. Texas Statute
209 allows for the collection of past due amounts to HOA’s but does
2
not allow attempting to collect future assessments which were never
pled in Cause 2017-46730.
Further Appellants seek sanctions against Appellees and their
legal counsel for perpetrating said Fraud.
In response, the association points out that the state of the record makes it
impossible to know what happened in the trial and to decide whether the trial judge
committed any error in allowing certain exhibits into evidence. According to the
association, “there is no reporter’s record of either the trial on the merits or the
hearing on motion for new trial.” Thus, “the Court has no way to confirm any timely
objection was made below.” Additionally, with respect to appellants’ request for
sanctions, the association argues that appellants never moved for sanctions in the
trial court, nor did they seek sanctions in their new trial motion.
We agree that the state of the record requires us to uphold the judgment.
Without a transcript of the proceedings at trial, we cannot know what documents
came into evidence or were kept out. We cannot know whether anyone objected to
any of that evidence, whether the judge sustained or overruled such objections, or
whether any erroneous rulings during the trial caused anybody any harm. We cannot
know whether appellants’ “newly discovered evidence” was so material that it
probably would produce a different result if a new trial were granted. Nor can we
evaluate appellants’ arguments about res judicata or offset, because we would need
3
to see the evidence on that point (assuming that we could find a pleading that raised
res judicata or offset as an affirmative defense).
Thus, we cannot presume preservation, error, or harm. Instead, we start from
the familiar presumption that the lower court handled the case appropriately. See,
e.g., Gordon v. Godsey, No. 01-07-00494-CV, 2007 WL 4465389, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 20, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“If, as here, the trial
court conducts a bench trial and enters findings of fact, and if the record on appeal
does not include the reporter’s record from the bench trial, we must presume that the
evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings and
judgment.”); see also Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229–30 (Tex. 2002) (per
curiam) (restating principle that, absent complete record on appeal, appellate court
must presume omitted items supported trial court’s judgment).
Nor can we accept attachments to a brief as substitutes for a proper record.
Appellate courts are confined to matters appearing in the appellate record. See
Democratic Schs. Rsch., Inc. v. Rock, 608 S.W.3d 290, 305 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.); Dauz v. Valdez, 571 S.W.3d 795, 811 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.). Appellate courts cannot consider documents
attached as exhibits or appendices to briefs if those documents are not formally
included in the record on appeal. See Rock, 608 S.W.3d at 305; Dauz, 571 S.W.3d
at 811.
4
For the preceding reasons, and given the state of the record on file before us,
this Court has no basis for disturbing the trial court’s judgment. We therefore
overrule appellants’ complaints.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
David Gunn
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Morgan.
5