CROSSOVER: Texas 14th COA: No Offer of Proof, No Appeal—How to Preserve Excluded Business/Medical Records in Family Trials

Members Choice Credit Union v. Juan Menjivar, 14-25-00090-CV, March 24, 2026.

On appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment because the appellant failed to preserve appellate error after the trial court excluded business-record exhibits. Without a reporter’s record showing an offer of proof—or a formal bill of exception—the court presumed the excluded evidence supported the trial court’s ruling, and the authentication/sufficiency arguments went nowhere.

Relevance to Family Law

Family trials routinely turn on excluded documents: bank statements for tracing, medical/therapy records in custody disputes, business ledgers and QuickBooks exports in division cases, and employment/pay records for support. This opinion is a preservation warning shot: if your key records are excluded and you do not make an offer of proof (on the record) or perfect a bill of exception—especially when no reporter’s record is made—your appellate issue may be dead on arrival, regardless of how “obviously admissible” the documents seemed.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

MCCU sued for a deficiency balance after repossession and sale of a vehicle financed by the defendant. Before trial, MCCU filed trial exhibits and a business-record affidavit, but the exhibits were not attached to the affidavit; and the court found they were not served at least 14 days before trial as required for self-authentication under Texas Rule of Evidence 902(10). The trial court excluded the exhibits pretrial.

At trial, MCCU presented testimony from a corporate representative and later argued on appeal that the witness’s testimony authenticated the documents and proved its breach-of-contract claim. But there was no reporter’s record of trial. The trial court’s findings stated that after the witness testified, MCCU did not re-offer the records discussed in testimony, and “the Court’s records have no evidence admitted” supporting MCCU’s claim.

Issues Decided

• Whether MCCU preserved an appellate complaint that the trial court erroneously excluded its business-record exhibits under Texas Rule of Evidence 902(10).
• Whether, on this record, the court would reach MCCU’s arguments that the witness testimony authenticated the exhibits and conclusively established the claim.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a): Preservation requires a timely request/objection, specific grounds, and a ruling that appears in the record.
• Texas Rule of Evidence 103(a), (b): To complain about excluded evidence, the proponent must inform the court of the substance by an offer of proof (informal bill) unless apparent from context; and the complaint must be preserved in the record.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.2: If an offer of proof is not captured in a reporter’s record, the proponent must preserve the excluded matter via a formal bill of exception.
• Presumption in absence of record: Without a record showing what was excluded and why, the appellate court presumes the excluded evidence supports the trial court’s ruling. (Citing Anderson v. Wynne, 672 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).)
• Unchallenged findings bind: Findings of fact and conclusions of law are binding unless properly challenged on appeal. (Citing Dresser-Rand Group, Inc. v. Centauro Capital, S.L.U., 448 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).)
• Rule 902(10) mechanics (as referenced by the trial court’s findings): Business-record self-authentication requires service of the record and affidavit at least 14 days before trial and compliance with the attachment/service requirements.

Application

The court treated preservation—not admissibility—as the controlling battlefield. MCCU argued the trial judge misapplied Rule 902(10) and that the corporate representative’s testimony authenticated the records anyway. But the appellate court never reached the merits because MCCU could not point to a reporter’s record showing an offer of proof after the exclusion ruling.

That omission was fatal for two reasons. First, Rule 103 requires the proponent to make the substance of excluded evidence known to the trial court by offer of proof (or put the excluded evidence into the appellate record by bill of exception). Second, the absence of a reporter’s record left the appellate court with no way to assess what the documents were, what foundation was offered, what objections were lodged, or what the judge considered. In that vacuum, the appellate presumption flips against the appellant: the excluded evidence is presumed to support the trial court’s ruling.

The opinion also highlights a common trial sequencing trap: losing a pretrial 902(10) admission fight does not relieve you of the obligation to re-offer the exhibits once you have live testimony laying authentication/predicate. Here, the trial court’s findings stated MCCU did not re-offer the documents after the witness testified. Because MCCU did not challenge those findings on appeal, the court treated them as binding—undercutting the entire “testimony cured it” theory and reinforcing the take-nothing result where, procedurally, “no evidence” was admitted.

Holding

The court affirmed because MCCU failed to preserve error regarding the exclusion of its exhibits. Without a reporter’s record showing an offer of proof, and without a formal bill of exception, the appellate court held the complaint about exclusion was not preserved and therefore not reviewable.

Separately, the court declined to revisit MCCU’s authentication/sufficiency narrative because the trial court’s unchallenged findings stated MCCU did not re-offer the records after testimony and that no admitted evidence supported MCCU’s claim. On that posture, MCCU could not obtain reversal by arguing that testimony “should have” established its claim when the supporting exhibits were never admitted and the preservation steps were missing.

Practical Application

In family court, excluded records are rarely “nice to have”; they are often the case. Think: (1) tracing exhibits in a complex property characterization dispute; (2) business valuation inputs (bank feeds, general ledger, POS reports); (3) medical/therapy records or prescription logs in a conservatorship modification; (4) school attendance/discipline records; (5) employment/payroll and benefits records in child support or spousal maintenance.

This case reinforces three strategic points for family litigators:

1. Rule 902(10) is a convenience, not a safety net. If you miss the service/attachment mechanics, you may still authenticate through a live witness—but only if you actually re-offer the exhibit, obtain a ruling, and preserve the excluded matter if the court says no.
2. Preservation must be engineered in real time. When the judge excludes your exhibit, the appellate path is built that moment: offer of proof on the record (with the court reporter present) or a formal bill of exception afterward.
3. No reporter’s record is an appellate disaster unless you over-preserve. Family cases sometimes proceed on informal records or limited reporting. If you are trying a case with high evidentiary stakes, you should assume that if it is not in the reporter’s record (or preserved by bill), it effectively did not happen.

Checklists

Preserving Excluded Financial/Business Records (Divorce Property & Support)

• Ensure a court reporter is present (or confirm reporting coverage) for all evidentiary rulings that may matter on appeal
• If a business-record exhibit is excluded, immediately request permission to make an offer of proof under Tex. R. Evid. 103
• Offer of proof: identify the exhibit, summarize its contents and purpose (e.g., tracing, income, reimbursement), and elicit the foundational testimony you would have offered
• Mark the exhibit for identification and tender it to the court for inclusion in the offer-of-proof record
• Obtain an express ruling excluding the exhibit (and, if applicable, excluding specific portions)
• If the court excludes the exhibit pretrial, re-offer it during trial after you lay predicate through live testimony
• If the offer of proof is not captured in a reporter’s record, timely perfect a formal bill of exception under Tex. R. App. P. 33.2 (attach the excluded documents)

Rule 902(10) Deployment in Family Cases (Medical, School, Banking, Employment)

• Serve the affidavit and the records together (as a package) on all parties well ahead of trial
• Calendar the 14-day service deadline and build in buffer for disputes and supplementations
• Verify the records you intend to offer at trial are the same records served with the affidavit (no “trial binder surprises”)
• If opposing counsel objects to 902(10) compliance, be prepared with a fallback witness to authenticate under Rules 803(6) and 901
• When the court sustains a 902(10) objection, pivot immediately: lay testimony predicate and re-offer the exhibit

Avoiding the “No Reporter’s Record” Trap

• Confirm on the record at the start of trial that a court reporter is present and reporting (or file a written request per local practice)
• If any portion is not reported, request that evidentiary rulings and offers of proof be taken up on the record
• After trial, if you anticipate an appeal and a key exclusion occurred, evaluate whether a formal bill of exception is required to protect the record
• If findings of fact/conclusions of law are issued, challenge adverse findings that foreclose your theory (e.g., “party did not re-offer exhibits”)

Citation

Members Choice Credit Union v. Menjivar, No. 14-25-00090-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 24, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

This is a ready-made leverage point in divorce and custody trials when the other side’s case hinges on records they did not properly authenticate or preserve. If opposing counsel tries to “try the case through excluded documents” (referencing bank statements, medical charts, daycare logs, or business ledgers that never come into evidence), press for exclusion—and then press again on preservation: if they do not make a clean offer of proof or bill, they have likely forfeited meaningful appellate review. Conversely, when your records are excluded, treat the ruling as an emergency: build the appellate runway immediately with an on-the-record offer of proof (or a formal bill if necessary), and re-offer after testimony so you are not trapped by a later finding that you never actually put admissible evidence before the court.

~~23828a42-b145-4f89-8d7a-15fb0ce037b1~~