law-motion-for-new-trial-family-court | motion for new trial based on new evidence |
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL | FAMILY LAW CASE
We review denials of a motion for continuance and a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. In re R.R.,
209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006); Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986). A trial court abuses
its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner or when it acts without reference to any
guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985).
Under the abuse of discretion standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
actions and indulge every presumption in favor of the judgment. Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). Even if the reviewing court would have decided the issue
differently, it cannot disturb the trial court’s decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). If some probative and substantive evidence
supports the order, there is no abuse of discretion. Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616, 623 (Tex. App.
—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
Ritu’s complaint concerning the denial of her motion for new trial also fails. Ritu likens her case to C. v. C.,
534 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1976, writ dism’d), in which the court of appeals held that failure to
grant a motion for new trial may be an abuse of discretion when the evidence presented is sufficiently
strong. Id. In C. v. C., the court, citing affidavits in support of the mother’s motion for new trial that showed
the father had a violent temper and had treated his children harshly, held that the trial court abused its
Here, in contrast to the record in C. v. C., nothing in this record indicates that the trial court’s custody order
has had any adverse effect on the children. See id. In her affidavit in support of her motion for new trial,
Ritu complains that the court heard “nothing of our lives or how the boys are cared for,” but does not state
any facts that bear negatively on the children’s care or well-being while in Rajiv’s custody. The trial court
thus did not abuse its discretion in overruling Ritu’s motion for new trial.
Singh v. Singh (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 2009)(Bland)
(divorce with children, conservatorship SAPCR, division of marital property, denial of Motion for Continuance
and motion for new trial)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp
01-08-00198-CV Ritu Singh v. Rajiv Singh
Appeal from 312th District Court Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. David Farr
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE