Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY OF CONROE, Appellant,

v.

David J. KEILSON and Pamela Y. Keilson, Appellees.

No. 09-98-308CV.

|

April 29, 1999.

Before WALKER, C.J., BURGESS and STOVER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

*1 The underlying lawsuit in this case involves the refinancing of the mortgage on David and Pamela Keilson’s residential homestead. The case was tried to the court and the trial judge decided in favor of the Keilsons. Old Republic Title Company of Conroe appeals, alleging in five points of error: 1) the trial court erred in awarding the Keilsons $1,349.46 in damages; 2) the trial court erred in not awarding Old Republic $1,349.46 in damages; 3) the trial court erred in awarding the Keilsons $7,500 in attorney’s fees; 4) the trial court erred in not awarding Old Republic attorney’s fees; and 5) the trial court erred in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. We first address Old Republic’s final point.

Upon proper request, the trial court has a duty to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Cherne Industries, Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.1989) (quoting Wagner v. Riske, 142 Tex. 337, 343, 178 S.W.2d 117, 120 (1944)). The failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law upon proper requests is presumed harmful, unless “the record before the appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no injury.” Cherne Industries, 763 S.W.2d at 772; City of Los Fresnos v. Gonzalez, 830 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ); Anzaldua v. Anzaldua, 742 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1987, writ denied). See also Goggins v. Leo, 849 S.W.2d 373, 379 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ). The test for harm is whether the circumstances of the particular case would require an appellant to guess at the reason for the trial court’s decision. Sheldon Pollack Corp. v. Pioneer Concrete of Texas, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 843, 845 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied). The harm caused by the trial court’s failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law boils down to whether such failure denies or prevents appellant from making a proper presentation of his case on appeal. See Eye Site, Inc. v. Blackburn, 750 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988), rev’d on other grounds, 796 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.1990).

Texas Workers’ Compensation Ins. Fund v. Ashy, 972 S.W.2d 208, 210-11 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, pet. denied). In this case, we cannot say the record affirmatively discloses no injury. Because Old Republic challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the amount of damages awarded in the judgment, the trial court’s failure prevents a proper presentation of the case on appeal. Therefore, we abate the appeal and direct the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex.R.App.P. 44.4.

*2 APPEAL ABATED.