CROSSOVER: Charge-Error Preservation Roadmap: 14th COA Reaffirms Payne Test—Make the Trial Court Aware, Timely, Plainly, and Get a Ruling

Norman v. Kahn Scheepvaart BV, 14-24-00176-CV, March 31, 2026.

On appeal from 334th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment after a plaintiff lost a negligence verdict, holding she preserved almost none of her jury-charge complaints because she did not object timely and specifically, did not ensure her requested charge was in the record, and did not obtain a clear ruling. The court reaffirmed the Payne preservation test: make the trial court aware of the complaint—timely, plainly—and get a ruling. Alleged juror/bailiff misconduct also did not warrant a new trial.

Relevance to Family Law

Family cases are jury-charge cases—particularly on conservatorship issues submitted to a jury (limitations, geographic restriction, primary residence), and sometimes on characterization/reimbursement disputes. Norman is a reminder that even a meritorious appellate issue dies at the courthouse door if you do not (1) object with specificity on the record before submission, (2) tender your requested language in substantially correct form, (3) ensure the tender is actually included in the clerk’s record, and (4) obtain an express ruling/refusal. In custody and property trials, where charge conferences are fast and frequently informal, the preservation traps are the same—and the consequences (affirmance despite a flawed charge) are identical.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Franchae Norman, a longshore worker, sued the vessel owner/operator, Kahn Scheepvaart BV, for negligence under general maritime law after she was struck during a heavy-lift unloading operation at the Port of Houston. The case tried to a jury over eight days. The jury charge included instructions describing the limited duties owed by a vessel operator to a longshore worker, and the first liability question asked whether the negligence of Norman and/or Kahn proximately caused the incident. The jury answered “No” for both parties, resulting in a take-nothing judgment.

Post-verdict, Norman filed a motion for new trial asserting broad grounds, including allegations of juror and bailiff misconduct. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Norman attacked the jury charge as confusing/misleading and as improperly allowing certain theories/defenses, and also argued juror/court-staff misconduct warranted a new trial.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appellant preserved her jury-charge complaints for appellate review.
• Whether any preserved charge complaints established reversible error.
• Whether alleged juror and/or bailiff (court-staff) misconduct required a new trial, and whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for new trial.

Rules Applied

• Preservation of charge error (core roadmap):
  • Tex. R. Civ. P. 272 (timing and method of objections)
  • Tex. R. Civ. P. 273 (requests for questions/instructions)
  • Tex. R. Civ. P. 274 (distinct objection and grounds; waiver)
  • Tex. R. Civ. P. 276 (court endorsement “Refused” on requested submissions)
  • Tex. R. Civ. P. 278 (request in substantially correct wording; omission complaints)
• Unifying preservation test:
  • State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1992) (preserve by making the trial court aware, timely and plainly, and obtaining a ruling)
  • Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. 2012) (trial courts cannot be expected to “scour” the charge; filing a proposed charge alone does not preserve error)
• Limits on “fundamental error” in civil charge practice:
  • In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003)
  • In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003)

Application

The court framed the appeal around preservation, not eloquence. Norman raised multiple charge defects on appeal (confusing/misleading standards, speculation on unpleaded causation matters, allowing a “no one responsible” outcome, and an alleged unavoidable-accident defense). But at the charge conference, her counsel lodged no objections matching those theories. That silence was fatal under Rules 272 and 274, and the court refused to treat the alleged defects as “fundamental error,” citing B.L.D. and L.M.I..

Norman attempted to rely on earlier filings and a trial “tender.” The court rejected preservation-by-paperwork. A draft proposed charge filed months before trial did not, by itself, make the trial judge aware of the specific complaints at the charge conference or secure a ruling—exactly what Cruz warns against. Worse, the alleged “Plaintiff’s Tender” was not included in the clerk’s record, and the trial court never clearly endorsed it as “Refused” or otherwise ruled on it. Without the tender in the record, the appellate court could not evaluate what was requested, whether it was substantially correct, or whether any refusal preserved error under Rules 276 and 278.

In short: no timely, specific objection; no requested language preserved in the record; no ruling. Under Payne, that is the end of most charge complaints. The court then addressed the small subset of complaints that could arguably have been preserved, concluding one was not error and the other—assuming error—was harmless, so there was no reversible charge error.

On the misconduct/new-trial side, the appellant failed to carry the burden to show reversible harm tied to juror/court-staff conduct and failed to show the trial court abused discretion in denying the new trial. The appellate court affirmed.

Holding

The court held that the appellant failed to preserve most jury-charge complaints because she did not present timely, specific objections and did not ensure any tendered requested charge was included in the record and ruled on, as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Payne test.

The court further held that the two arguably preserved charge complaints did not warrant reversal—one did not establish charge error, and the other would be harmless even if error.

Finally, the court held that the alleged juror/bailiff misconduct did not justify a new trial, and the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial was affirmed.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, Norman is a charge-conference discipline case. In a jury SAPCR, you often have one shot—after the evidence closes and before the charge is read—to preserve error on (i) the controlling questions, (ii) definitions and instructions (best interest, limitations, relocation/geographic restriction language), and (iii) inferential rebuttal instructions (e.g., “parental presumption,” statutory presumptions, or limiting instructions on certain evidence). If your proposed charge language lives only in your trial notebook or was filed pretrial without being re-urged, tendered, and ruled upon at the conference, you may win the law and lose the appeal.

In a property case tried to a jury (characterization, fraud on the community, reimbursement questions), preservation is equally unforgiving. If the court’s question misallocates the burden, omits an element, or allows an impermissible “none” finding, you must object distinctly and get a ruling—and if you want a missing question submitted, you must tender substantially correct language, ensure it is filed, and secure an endorsed refusal.

Finally, Norman underscores a strategic reality: misconduct/new-trial issues are reviewed through an abuse-of-discretion lens and require a tight record. If you suspect juror or bailiff irregularity in a family jury trial (communications, exposure to extraneous information, social media, hallway interactions), you must build admissible proof and connect it to harm; generalized allegations rarely survive appeal.

Checklists

Charge-Error Preservation (The Payne Roadmap)

• Make the trial court aware of the complaint before the charge is read to the jury.
• State the objection plainly and specifically (identify the exact question/definition/instruction and the precise defect).
• Tie the objection to the controlling law (statute, pattern charge, or case authority).
• Obtain an express ruling on each objection (sustained/overruled).
• If the court refuses to rule, object to the refusal and request a ruling again (create a clear record).

Requested Questions/Instructions (Avoid “Tender but No Record”)

• Prepare requested submissions in substantially correct wording (do not tender argument).
• File-stamp the requested charge or requested questions/instructions so they appear in the clerk’s record.
• Hand the court reporter a copy (or dictate into the record) to ensure it is captured.
• Ask the judge to endorse each requested item “Refused” and signed (Tex. R. Civ. P. 276).
• Confirm on the record that the tendered document is the one being refused (no ambiguity about versions).

Family Law Jury Trials: High-Risk Charge Topics

• SAPCR conservatorship questions and instructions (including any statutory presumptions you rely on).
• Geographic restriction and primary residence submissions (make sure the question matches the relief sought).
• Limiting instructions on inflammatory evidence (family violence, substance use, criminal history).
• Property characterization burdens (separate property tracing, community presumption) and reimbursement submissions.
• “No one liable/none responsible” structures—object if the structure permits an impermissible verdict under your theory.

Misconduct/New Trial Record-Building

• Move immediately for a hearing and obtain a ruling on any request for inquiry.
• Secure admissible evidence (affidavits/testimony) showing misconduct, not speculation.
• Identify the extraneous information or improper contact with specificity.
• Establish harm (how the event probably caused an improper verdict).
• Ensure all exhibits and affidavits are filed and included in the clerk’s record.

Citation

Norman v. Kahn Scheepvaart BV, No. 14-24-00176-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 31, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

This opinion is weaponizable in family cases because it converts “the judge got the charge wrong” from an appellate narrative into a preservation audit. If you represent the appellee in a SAPCR or divorce jury trial, Norman is a ready-made framework for an early, credibility-damaging response: isolate each alleged charge defect, then show the appellant did not (1) object distinctly and timely, (2) tender substantially correct language into the record, and (3) obtain an express ruling—thereby waiving the point under Payne, Rules 272–278, and Cruz. Conversely, if you represent the would-be appellant, treat Norman as a pre-appeal “record hygiene” mandate: the winning appellate issue often is not the clever substantive argument—it is the clean, timestamped objection and refused tender that proves the trial judge had a fair opportunity to fix the problem before the jury ever saw it.

~~5cbf39a2-bcc0-47e0-9837-d1b00f960e30~~