Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas considered Deborah Morales’s appeal from a judgment finding her liable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 12.002 for filing a fraudulent affidavit of adverse possession concerning a private road. The court rejected or held waived her challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, damages awarded to Jason Flewellin, exclusion of a master in chancery report, the jury charge, and attorney’s fees. The court modified the judgment to correct the post-judgment interest rate to 7.75% and affirmed it as modified.
Court
Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio
Jurisdiction
Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio
Decision date
April 30, 2026
Docket number
No. 04-24-00867-CV
Disposition
affirmed
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Morales violated Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 12.002 by filing the affidavit with knowledge that it was fraudulent, intent that it receive legal effect, and intent to cause harm.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded $10,000 in statutory damages to Jason Flewellin despite his absence from trial.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding or redacting portions of the master in chancery's report.
- Whether Morales preserved her complaint that the jury charge omitted essential Chapter 12 elements and improperly grouped the appellees.
- Whether Morales preserved her challenges to the admission, segregation, and legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Walkers' attorney's-fees award.
- Whether the trial court used the correct post-judgment interest rate.
Holdings
- The evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to find that Morales violated Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 12.002 by filing a fraudulent affidavit of adverse possession with the requisite knowledge and intent.
- The award of $10,000 in statutory damages to Jason Flewellin was supported by the record, and Morales waived any complaint concerning his inclusion in the jury charge by failing to object or move to dismiss his claims.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding or requiring redaction of the master in chancery's report, and Morales failed to preserve the complaint because she neither introduced the redacted report nor made an offer of proof showing the substance and harm of the excluded evidence.
- Morales did not preserve her complaints that the jury charge omitted essential Chapter 12 elements or improperly grouped the appellees because her attorney agreed to the charge and made no timely, specific objection or request.
- Morales waived her complaints concerning the admission, segregation, and legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Walkers' attorney's-fees award.
- The trial court's judgment was modified to provide for a post-judgment interest rate of 7.75%; the judgment was affirmed as modified.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…