Williams-James v. James, 03-25-00407-CV, March 17, 2026.
On appeal from the 426th District Court of Bell County, Texas.
Synopsis
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e), when a dispute arises regarding the completeness of the reporter’s record or the admission status of exhibits after the record has been filed, the appellate court must abate the appeal. The trial court is the proper forum to resolve such factual discrepancies through notice and a formal hearing to ensure the record accurately reflects the trial proceedings.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes family law litigation—particularly regarding complex property divisions or contested custody modifications—the integrity of the evidentiary record is the linchpin of a successful appeal. If the reporter’s record omits critical testimony or erroneously includes exhibits that were never admitted (or excludes those that were), the appellate court’s review of “abuse of discretion” is fundamentally compromised. Williams-James reinforces the procedural mandate that practitioners must return to the trial court to “clean up” the record, ensuring that the appellate court is not reviewing a fiction, but rather the actual evidence upon which the trial court’s judgment was based.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appellant, Nylondraleshannette Williams-James, appearing pro se, sought multiple extensions to file her brief. Following several supplemental filings of the clerk’s and reporter’s records, she filed motions asserting that the reporter’s record remained incomplete. Specifically, she challenged the inclusion and status of certain exhibits found in a supplemental volume of the clerk’s record, disputing whether those items were ever formally admitted into evidence during the trial proceedings in the 426th District Court.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appellate court possesses the authority to resolve factual disputes regarding the accuracy and completeness of the reporter’s record.
- The proper procedural remedy under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure when a party challenges the admission status of exhibits after the record has been filed in the court of appeals.
Rules Applied
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(2): This rule dictates that if the parties cannot agree on record corrections, the trial court must—after notice and hearing—settle the dispute and order the court reporter to conform the record to what actually occurred.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3): This provision allows an appellate court to submit a record dispute to the trial court for resolution even after the reporter’s record has been filed.
Application
The Third Court of Appeals determined that it could not adjudicate the appellant’s claims regarding record omissions and exhibit status in the first instance. Because the appellant’s motions directly challenged whether the filed record accurately mirrored the trial proceedings, the court looked to the mandatory framework of Rule 34.6. The court reasoned that since the dispute arose after the filing of the record, the most efficient and legally sound path was to utilize Rule 34.6(e)(3) to return the issue to the trial judge. By abating the appeal, the appellate court shifted the burden to the trial court to conduct a hearing, examine the court reporter’s notes and the parties’ exhibits, and “settle the dispute.” This ensures that the court of appeals eventually receives a certified, accurate supplemental record rather than guessing at the veracity of the appellant’s claims.
Holding
The Court held that the appeal must be abated and the cause remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of resolving the dispute over the completeness of the reporter’s record and the admission of the contested exhibits.
The Court further held that the trial court is required to provide notice and hold a hearing to settle these disputes. If the trial court identifies any inaccuracies, it must order the court reporter to file certified corrections. The appeal will remain abated until a supplemental reporter’s record containing the trial court’s findings is filed with the Third Court of Appeals.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, Williams-James serves as a strategic roadmap for record management. When a trial involves hundreds of digital exhibits or disjointed testimony over several days, errors in the reporter’s record are common. If you discover after the record is filed that a key piece of evidence—such as a tracing expert’s report or a Guardian ad Litem’s recommendation—is missing or incorrectly labeled, you should not attempt to “fix” this via briefing or mere letters to the clerk. Instead, a formal motion to abate under Rule 34.6(e) is required. This case confirms that the appellate court will not resolve these “he-said, she-said” record disputes and will insist on a trial court hearing to verify the record’s pedigree.
Checklists
Post-Filing Record Audit
- Compare the final Reporter’s Record index against your trial exhibit log to ensure “Admitted” statuses align.
- Cross-reference the Supplemental Clerk’s Record against the Reporter’s Record to ensure every document included was actually offered or admitted.
- Verify that all “in camera” or “sealed” documents are appropriately handled and not erroneously omitted from the supplemental volumes.
Procedure for Record Correction
- Attempt to obtain a written stipulation from opposing counsel regarding the record inaccuracy (per TRAP 34.6(e)(1)).
- If no agreement is reached, file a Motion to Abate and Remand for Record Correction in the Court of Appeals.
- Request a specific deadline in the abatement order for the trial court to hold its hearing.
- Prepare a proposed order for the trial court that directs the court reporter to file a “Certified Supplemental Reporter’s Record” upon the conclusion of the hearing.
The Remand Hearing
- Ensure the Court Reporter is present with original stenographic notes or digital recordings.
- Present the specific page and line numbers where the exhibit was offered and where the trial court ruled.
- Secure a clear finding from the trial judge on the record regarding whether the disputed items were admitted into evidence.
Citation
Williams-James v. James, No. 03-25-00407-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 17, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~f683d741-e4c1-4826-87aa-7abafc1db060~~
Share this content: