Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00202-CV GARY PAHUJA, ROGER D’SOUZA, RAJENDRA PRASAD PAHUJA, AND TERRASTONE, LLC, APPELLANTS V. COLORS OF BRAZIL, LLC, AND COLORS OF INDIA, LLC, APPELLEES On Appeal from the 236th District Court Tarrant County, Texas 1 Trial Court No. 236-310932-19, Honorable Thomas Wilson Lowe III, Presiding November 6, 2026 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ. Appellants, Gary Pahuja, Roger D’Souza, Rajendra Prasad Pahuja, and Terrastone, LLC, appeal a judgment following a bench trial in favor of appellees, Colors of Brazil, LLC and Colors of India, LLC. By their fifth issue presented, Appellants contend that this Court should reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial because 1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket-equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. In the event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. the trial court failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law and the presiding judge retired before the applicable filing period expired. Appellees, in their responsive brief, contend that the proper means to address the trial court’s failure is to abate and remand the appeal to allow the trial court to enter findings and conclusions. We agree with Appellees. Over the course of two weeks in September of 2024, a bench trial was held in this cause by Thomas W. “Tom” Lowe, III, presiding judge of the 236th District Court. On December 1, the trial court issued its “Final Judgment.” On December 19, Appellants timely filed their request for findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 296. When the trial court did not issue its findings and conclusions by their due date of January 8, 2025, Appellants timely filed notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the trial court did not issue findings and conclusions by the subsequent deadline of January 28. If findings of fact and conclusions of law are properly requested, the trial court has a mandatory duty to file them. Zieba v. Martin, 928 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ). The failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is presumed harmful, unless the record affirmatively shows that the complaining party suffered no injury. Id. An appellant is harmed if there are two or more possible grounds on which the trial court could have ruled, and the appellant is left to guess as to the basis for the trial court’s ruling. Academy Corp. v. Interior Buildout & Turnkey Constr., Inc., 21 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The proper remedy when the trial court fails to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is to request the appellate court to abate the appeal with direction to the trial court to correct its error. AD 2 Villarai, LLC v. Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132, 136 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam); see TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4 (requiring appellate courts to direct trial court to remedy any correctable error that “prevents the proper presentation of a case to the court of appeals”). Upon review of the record, we find that the matters in question are not undisputed and that the record does not affirmatively show that Appellants suffered no injury. Consequently, we cannot conclude that Appellants suffered no harm from the trial court’s failure to issue the requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Hamlett v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, No. 07-16-00256-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11488, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 24, 2016, order) (per curiam) (remanding for findings where record did not affirmatively show that appellant suffered no harm due to trial court’s failure to file requested findings and conclusions). While Judge Lowe heard this case and issued the judgment from which Appellants appeal, we take judicial notice 2 that the Governor of Texas appointed H. Dustin “Dusty” Fillmore, III, as Judge of the 236th District Court on January 15, 2026, to replace Judge Lowe, who resigned. See The Governor of the State of Tex., Appointments for January 15, 2026, 51 Tex. Reg. 443, 447 (2026). Rule 18 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a successor judge to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when the preceding judge has died, resigned, or become disabled during his term of office. TEX. 2 This Court may take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned and may do so on our own initiative. TEX. R. EVID. 201(b)(2), (c)(1); Rockstar Remodeling & Diamond Decks, LLC v. Taddia, No. 03-19-00657-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 2672, at *4 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 1, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re Estate of Hemsley, 460 S.W.3d 629, 638 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, pet. denied)). 3 R. CIV. P. 18; In re J.D.H., No. 05-14-00504-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7638, at *15 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 18, 2016, no pet.). Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 236th District Court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 297; TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4(b). The court shall cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than Monday, December 21, 2026. Per Curiam 4