Louis Frias v. Yolanda Rios

No. 01-25-00676-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 5, 2026) · Texas Court of Appeals for the First District at Houston · March 5, 2026 · No. No. 01-25-00676-CV

Summary

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a judgment declaring Yolanda Rios the sole owner of disputed real property. The court held that Louis Frias waived his appellate issues by failing to provide meaningful argument and, alternatively, that the absence of a reporter’s record required presumptions supporting the trial court’s judgment and prevented review of certain evidentiary complaints.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals for the First District at Houston
Writing for the Court
Veronica Rivas-Molloy; Johnson; Dokupil
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Decision date
March 5, 2026
Docket number
No. 01-25-00676-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal by Louis Frias from a final judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of Yolanda Rios in a quiet-title action.
Standard of review
Issues requiring review of the trial evidence cannot generally be decided without a reporter's record. In the absence of a reporter's record, the trial court's findings of fact are conclusive and the appellate court presumes that omitted evidence supports the judgment. The trial judge is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight of testimony.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion; the source metadata identifies it as published, but the opinion itself does not state a separate precedential designation.
Parties
Louis Frias v. Yolanda Rios
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurepreservation of errorstandard of reviewevidencecivil procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedurecivil procedurereal estateevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Frias waived his appellate issues by failing to provide meaningful argument, analysis, explanation, legal authority, and record citations.
  2. Whether, without a reporter's record, the court could review Frias's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's ownership judgment.
  3. Whether the appellate court could reassess a witness's credibility when the trial record was unavailable and the trial court was the factfinder.
  4. Whether Frias preserved his evidentiary complaint concerning testimony about his criminal background when there was no reporter's record and no written objection in the clerk's record.
  5. Whether Rios's alleged lateness to court required dismissal of the case.

Holdings

  1. Frias waived his appellate issues because his pro se brief merely listed complaints without providing appropriate argument, analysis, explanation, legal authority, or meaningful support.
  2. Without a reporter's record, the court could not review Frias's first three issues challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and presumed that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's judgment.
  3. The court could not reassess the challenged witness's credibility because the trial court, as factfinder, was the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight of testimony.
  4. Frias did not preserve his evidentiary complaint for appellate review because there was no reporter's record and no written objection to the challenged evidence in the clerk's record.

Key quotations

Failure to cite applicable authority or provide substantive analysis waives an issue on appeal. (at 3)
In the absence of a reporter’s record, the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive and we presume sufficient evidence supported any additional necessary findings. (at 4)
The trial court may choose to believe one witness and to disbelieve another, and we may not impose our own opinion to the contrary. (at 4)

Factual background

Yolanda Rios and Louis Frias asserted competing ownership rights in real property. Rios brought a quiet-title action, and after a bench trial the trial court found that Rios was the sole owner and that any claim by Frias was invalid. On appeal, Frias challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, a witness's credibility, the admission of evidence concerning his criminal background, and Rios's alleged lateness to court.

Procedural history

Rios sued Frias to quiet title to real property. After a bench trial, the 61st District Court of Harris County entered final judgment declaring Rios the sole owner and invalidating Frias's claim. Frias appealed pro se, did not obtain or arrange payment for the reporter's record, and proceeded on the clerk's record alone. The court of appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…