Edward J. Petrus v. Dr. Donald J. Daniels
Edward J. Petrus v. Dr. Donald J. Daniels
Opinion
In his points of error, Petrus contends that the trial court erred by finding that: (1) he was an at-will employee, (2) the contract both parties signed was executory and not enforceable, (3) Daniels did not sign the contract in his individual capacity, and (4) Petrus was not an employee of Daniels.
We must overrule all of appellant's points of error. Though Petrus contends that he is challenging legal conclusions, the challenged conclusions are all based on resolution of factual issues. To decide who signed a contract in what capacity and what relationship the contract created, a court must examine evidence. The supreme court has held that, if an appellant fails to bring forward a complete statement of facts (now, reporter's record), an appellate court must presume that the missing portions of the statement of facts support the judgment. Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991). Appellant does not claim that the reporter's record was lost or destroyed. He states plainly in his brief that he chose not to submit a reporter's record to this Court. Though Petrus attached some documents to his brief, we cannot consider them absent a showing that they were before the trial court; without a trial-court record or even a verifying affidavit, there is no showing that the trial court considered the documents in the appendix. We must conclude that the reporter's record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. We overrule all three points of error.
We affirm the judgment.
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Jones, B. A. Smith, and Yeakel
Affirmed
Filed: October 21, 1999
Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.