Eighth Court of Appeals Remands Divorce for New Trial After Critical Translation Lost in Reporter’s Record

Alazzawi v. Algharrawi, 08-23-00326-CV, February 20, 2026.

On appeal from the 45th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Synopsis

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f), an appellant is entitled to a mandatory new trial when a significant and necessary portion of the reporter’s record is lost, destroyed, or inaudible through no fault of the appellant and cannot be replaced by agreement. In this case, the Eighth Court of Appeals held that the loss of audible English translations of foreign-language testimony, coupled with corrupted stenographic files from a remote divorce trial, satisfied all four prongs of Rule 34.6(f), requiring a full remand.

Relevance to Family Law

For family law litigators, this opinion serves as a critical reminder that the “Zoom era” of litigation carries significant record-preservation risks. In divorce and custody disputes, where the trial court’s findings often hinge on the credibility of witness testimony, a failure in the digital or stenographic recording of that testimony can be fatal to the judgment. If the official English translation of a non-English speaking witness is not clearly captured or if the court reporter’s files become corrupted, the prevailing party risks losing their hard-won judgment entirely. This case underscores that a “reconstruction” via native-language recordings is insufficient if the parties cannot agree on the translation, effectively forcing a “do-over” of the entire trial.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This appeal arose from a final decree of divorce and an amended protective order. Following the filing of the notice of appeal, the court reporter notified the appellate court that stenographic files from two critical trial dates were corrupted and could not be opened. The Eighth Court of Appeals abated the case multiple times for evidentiary hearings to determine if the record could be salvaged. The trial court eventually found that while Zoom recordings of the proceedings existed, they failed to capture the English translation of the appellee’s Arabic testimony. The court reporter could not transcribe the Arabic, and the English audio was inaudible. While the trial court suggested the record could be reconstructed by re-translating the Arabic from the Zoom videos, the parties were unable to agree on the accuracy of any such replacement.

Issues Decided

The court addressed whether the loss of audible English translations and the corruption of a court reporter’s primary stenographic files constitute a “lost or destroyed” record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f), thereby mandating a new trial.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f), which grants a new trial if: (1) the record was timely requested; (2) a significant portion of the record is lost, destroyed, or inaudible through no fault of the appellant; (3) the missing portion is necessary to the appeal’s resolution; and (4) the parties cannot agree on a replacement. The court also relied on Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1991), regarding the appellant’s burden to provide a complete record for sufficiency reviews, and Gavrel v. Rodriguez, 225 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied), regarding the definition of a “necessary” record.

Application

The court’s analysis followed the four prongs of Rule 34.6(f). First, the appellant’s diligence was evident through timely and repeated requests for the record. Second, the court determined the loss was through no fault of the appellant; the technical failure of the court reporter’s stenographic software and the failure of the Zoom recording to capture the translator’s audio were external to the appellant’s actions. The court specifically noted that “lost” is a broad term encompassing notes or audio that are beyond reach or attainment.

Third, the court found the missing testimony was “necessary” to the appeal. Because the appellant intended to challenge the factual and legal sufficiency of the divorce decree and protective order, the absence of the appellee’s testimony—the primary evidence underlying the trial court’s judgment—rendered a meaningful appellate review impossible. Finally, the court noted the trial court’s own finding that the parties could not reach an agreement to replace the missing translations.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the appellant satisfied all requirements of Rule 34.6(f). The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.

The court reasoned that when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the absence of a complete record makes it impossible for the appellate court to review the evidence presented to the factfinder or apply the appropriate standard of review.

Practical Application

This case provides a strategic roadmap for appellate counsel seeking to overturn a judgment based on a deficient record. It also provides a cautionary tale for trial counsel who successfully obtain a favorable judgment: the burden of ensuring a clean, audible, and transcribable record often falls practically on the party who wants to keep the judgment. If you are litigating a case involving interpreters or remote technology, you must proactively ensure the court reporter is capturing the English translation clearly. If the record is lost, a “near-match” or a “re-translation” from a backup video will not save the judgment unless the other side agrees to it.

Checklists

Ensuring Record Integrity in Interpreted Proceedings

• Confirm Interpreter Audio: Ensure the interpreter is positioned to be clearly captured by the court reporter’s primary audio feed and the backup digital recording.
• Redundant Recording: If the trial is remote, ensure the “official” recording includes all audio channels, particularly the channel used by the interpreter.
• Real-time Monitoring: Periodically ask the court reporter if they are encountering any difficulties in hearing the English translation.
• Post-Trial Verification: Immediately upon the conclusion of a trial involving high-stakes testimony, request a confirmation from the reporter that the digital files are uncorrupted.

Seeking a New Trial Under Rule 34.6(f)

• Timely Request: Ensure the request for the reporter’s record is filed strictly within the appellate deadlines.
• Evidentiary Hearing: Request an abatement and a hearing in the trial court to obtain specific findings of fact regarding the “lost, destroyed, or inaudible” status of the record.
• Proof of Necessity: In the motion for new trial, clearly link the missing portions of the record to your intended points of error (e.g., sufficiency of evidence).
• Document Failed Negotiations: Keep a record of attempts to reach an agreement on a replacement record to prove to the appellate court that the parties are at an impasse.

Citation

Alazzawi v. Algharrawi, No. 08-23-00326-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 20, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

View the Full Opinion Here

~~357343d5-11cd-4fd1-906c-0770945ddc02~~