Opinion filed August 23, 2012

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-12-00036-CV

                                                    __________

                         TRACY LOVELACE NIEMANN, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                RICKY LYNN NIEMANN, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 22nd District Court

                                                             Hays County, Texas

                                                    Trial Court Cause No. 10-1623

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce signed by the district court on September 28, 2011.  Appellant, Tracy Lovelace Niemann, has filed a brief in this court requesting that the decree be reversed and vacated and that the cause be remanded to the district court for a de novo hearing.  Appellee, Ricky Lynn Niemann, has filed in this court a “Notice of Non-Opposition for Remand to the Trial Court for New Trial” in which he sets out the undisputed procedural facts and states: “In light of the facts state[d] above, Appellee is unopposed to this cause being remanded to the trial court for new trial.”  The record supports the parties’ assertions that appellant properly and timely requested a de novo hearing and that the district court failed to conduct a de novo hearing as required by Section 201.015(f) of the Family Code.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.015 (West Supp. 2012).  The requirement that the referring court hold a de novo hearing is mandatory, and harm is presumed when a de novo hearing is not held.  Att’y Gen. of Tex. v. Orr, 989 S.W.2d 464, 468–69 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).  In light of the record, the controlling law, and appellee’s “non-opposition,” we reverse and remand.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

August 23, 2012

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.