CONTEMPORARY CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion issued November 19, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00458-CV
............................
CONTEMPORARY CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellant
V.
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 05-06132-C
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Whittington, Bridges, and Lagarde
Opinion By Justice Bridges
        Appellant Contemporary Contractors, Inc. appeals from the trial court's Order Granting Wachovia's Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Garnishment and to Release Funds. In seven issues, appellant challenges certain aspects of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 
Background
 
        On March 25, 2005, the trial court issued a judgment in favor of Contemporary and against Sendera DFW Portfolio I, L.P. in the amount of $74,718.61, plus interest and costs.
        On June 27, 2005, Contemporary filed a garnishment action and a writ of garnishment was issued against Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo filed its Original Answer in the garnishment action and identified an account held by Sendera DFW Portfolio I, L.P. (“Sendera”), DFW Master Partnership Account, and Lincoln Properties as an account holding at least $80,000 for which Wells Fargo may have been indebted to Sendera at the time of the garnishment. Wells Fargo's Original Answer also contained a section entitled “Disclosure of Competing Claims to Funds & Motion to Interplead” in which it stated competing claims were asserted by both Contemporary and Wachovia Bank, N.A.
        On August 18, 2005, Wachovia intervened in the garnishment action and asserted ownership and/or priority interest in all of the funds in the garnished account. Wachovia's claim arose from a loan agreement it had with Sendera in which it agreed to loan Sendera approximately $24 million to be repaid in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement. For purposes of securing the loan agreement, Sendera had executed a deed of trust, security agreement, and fixture filing for the benefit of Wachovia. The deed of trust was filed and recorded in both Dallas and Tarrant Counties.
        Sendera defaulted under the terms of the loan agreement and deed of trust, and Wachovia declared the debt owed by Sendera due and payable in full. After notice was given, premises which had secured the loan agreement were sold at public auction for the total price of $20 million. Sendera then executed and provided to Wachovia a signature amendment to commercial account authorization and agreement, giving Wachovia signatory authority over the garnished account.
        In the garnishment action, Wachovia filed a motion to dissolve the garnishment and to release the funds in the garnished account to Wachovia. The trial court granted Wachovia's motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. This appeal ensued.
Discussion
 
        Through seven issues challenging some of the trial court's conclusions of law and findings of fact, Contemporary essentially contests the dissolution of its writ of garnishment with regard to the garnished account. We are bound to assume the validity of the judgment of the trial court. Leonard v. Eskew, 731 S.W.2d 124, 131 (Tex. App.-Austin 1987,writ ref'd n.r.e.). Rule 664a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides the framework for the dissolution or modification of a writ of garnishment. The rule states that any intervening party who claims an interest in such account may, by sworn written motion, seek to dissolve or modify the writ of garnishment, and the order directing its issuance, for any grounds or cause, extrinsic or intrinsic. Tex. R. Civ. P. 664a. The writ shall be dissolved unless, at such hearing, the plaintiff shall prove the grounds relied upon for its issuance. Id. (emphasis added). However, Contemporary has failed to present a record of the hearing for us to review on appeal. The lack of a record of the hearing prevents review of Contemporary's issues on appeal, and we must presume the evidence supports the trial court's judgment. See, e.g., Gumble v. Grand Homes 2000, L.P., 2007 WL 1866883, *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 29, 2007, no pet.); Sam Houston Hotel, L.P. v. Mockingbird Restaurant, Inc., 191 S.W.3d 720, 721 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Aguero v. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d 236, 238 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006, no pet.) (all stating there is no basis to review the trial court's decision in the absence of a record). We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DAVID L. BRIDGES
                                                          JUSTICE
 
060458F.P05