Leah S. Washington v. Michael Blow Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-16-00007-CV LEAH S. WASHINGTON, Appellant V. MICHAEL BLOW, Appellee On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 14-0413A Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION At the time of his intestate death, Marvin Washington, Sr., owned several tracts of real property in Harrison County, Texas. After his death, however, more than $30,000.00 in unpaid ad valorem taxes had accrued on the property. Michael Blow, a descendant of one of Marvin’s siblings, apparently believing himself to be part owner of the property, paid more than $26,000.00 toward the unpaid tax bill and executed a contract with the Harrison Central Appraisal District (the District) to pay the rest. Blow later discovered that Leah S. Washington claimed to be Marvin’s granddaughter and, thus, the sole owner of the property. Blow, therefore, demanded that Washington reimburse him for the tax money he had paid and had promised to pay. After Washington refused to pay Blow, he sued her seeking either a sale of the property under Chapter 29 of the Texas Property Code or a money judgment for unjust enrichment. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 29.001–.004 (West 2014). After a bench trial, the trial court awarded Blow a judgment against Washington in the amount of $35,926.61. On appeal, Leah argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the judgment and that the law disqualifies Blow from reimbursement. Leah posits that, because Blow is not an owner of the property and paid the taxes without Washington’s knowledge or agreement, Blow is not eligible for reimbursement. As appellant, Leah had the burden to properly request and arrange payment for the completion of a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(3); 2 Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990); Aguero v. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d 236, 237 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.). This she failed to do.1 Lacking a reporter’s record and findings of fact, we assume that evidence before the trial court supported its judgment. Nicholson v. Fifth Third Bank, 226 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Vickery v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 5 S.W.3d 241, 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Washington’s arguments on appeal are evidence-dependent; without a reporter’s record, we cannot adequately review them. See Aguero, 225 S.W.3d at 237; Southland Lloyd’s Ins. Co. v. Tomberlain, 919 S.W.2d 822, 832 n.6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, writ denied). Accordingly, we overrule these points of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: August 4, 2016 August 12, 2016 1 Washington has not asserted that she is indigent and cannot afford to pay for the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.2, 37.3(c)(2)(B). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
