TRAP 34.6(e)(3) Record Dispute Abatement | Dickinson v. Dickinson (2026)

Patricia Faith Dickinson v. Joshua Thomas Dickinson, 03-25-00489-CV, June 30, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Williamson County

Synopsis

When a post-filing dispute arises over whether the appellate record is incomplete or misleading, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3) permits the court of appeals to abate the appeal and remand the dispute to the trial court for resolution. The trial court—not the appellate court in the first instance—determines whether the disputed materials exist, are relevant to the appeal, and should be included through supplementation.

Relevance to Family Law

This order matters in family-law appeals because record disputes are especially common in SAPCR, divorce, enforcement, modification, and property-division cases, where temporary-orders hearings, bench conferences, in-chambers discussions, exhibits, sealed filings, and post-hearing submissions can materially affect appellate complaints. For Texas family-law litigators, Dickinson is a useful reminder that if the record filed in the court of appeals does not accurately capture what occurred below, Rule 34.6(e)(3) provides a procedural path to force a trial-court determination on completeness, relevance, and supplementation rather than leaving the appellant to brief around a deficient record.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

This appeal arose from a final judgment in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in Williamson County. After the appellate record had already been filed, the appellant, Patricia Dickinson, filed a verified motion to supplement the record in the Third Court of Appeals. She represented that she had made repeated good-faith efforts to obtain inclusion of additional materials in both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, including direct communications with the district clerk’s office and other court personnel, as well as formal motion practice.

According to the motion, those efforts did not result in the requested materials being added to the appellate record. Dickinson contended the omissions were significant enough to make the filed record “incomplete and potentially misleading,” and she maintained the missing materials were important to the issues on appeal. The opinion does not catalog each disputed item, but it makes clear that the controversy was no longer simply about requesting supplementation from the clerk or court reporter; it had become a dispute over whether the record as filed adequately reflected the proceedings and whether additional materials existed and properly belonged in the appellate record.

That procedural posture drove the court’s response. Because the dispute concerned the content and completeness of the appellate record after filing, the Austin Court of Appeals treated the matter as one for trial-court resolution under Rule 34.6(e)(3), rather than deciding the factual dispute itself.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3) authorizes an appellate court to abate and remand when a dispute arises after the appellate record has been filed over whether the record is incomplete or misleading.
• Whether the trial court must resolve the underlying factual questions concerning the disputed materials, including whether they exist, whether they are relevant to the appeal, and whether supplementation is proper.

Rules Applied

The court relied principally on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3). As quoted in the opinion, when “a dispute arises after the reporter’s record has been filed in the appellate court, that court may submit the dispute to the trial court for resolution.” The rule assigns resolution of reporter’s-record disputes to the trial court because those disputes often require factual determinations about what occurred, what was requested, what was admitted or considered, and whether an omission actually exists.

Although the order references Rule 34.6(e)(3) specifically in connection with the reporter’s record, the court’s abatement was framed more broadly to address whether the “appellate record” was incomplete or misleading and whether supplemental reporter’s or clerk’s records should be prepared. In practical terms, the court treated the trial court as the proper forum to resolve record-content disputes that turn on existence and relevance, even where the supplementation request touches both sides of the record.

The order also reflects a basic appellate principle familiar to every family-law appellate practitioner: the court of appeals does not act as a fact finder on collateral disputes about what is or is not in the trial-court record. When a factual controversy emerges over record accuracy, the dispute is remitted to the trial court for findings or determinations that can then be returned in a supplemental record.

Application

The Third Court applied Rule 34.6(e)(3) in a straightforward but important way. It began with the appellant’s verified assertion that despite repeated efforts, the record remained missing materials she contended were critical to the appeal. That allegation was enough to identify a live dispute about the accuracy and completeness of the record as filed. Once that dispute existed, the appellate court did not attempt to decide from competing assertions whether the omitted materials were real, omitted by mistake, outside the appellate record, or immaterial.

Instead, the court recognized that those are trial-level determinations. A trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the disputed proceedings occurred, whether the omitted documents or exhibits were actually filed, offered, admitted, or considered, whether they remain part of the trial-court file, and whether they bear on issues raised on appeal. So the court abated the appeal and remanded the cause, directing the trial court to resolve three specific questions: whether the appellate record was incomplete or misleading, whether the supplemental materials sought by the appellant exist and are relevant to the appeal, and whether the appellant is entitled to supplement the record with those materials.

That framing is strategically important. The court did not presume the appellant was right merely because the motion was verified, and it did not deny relief merely because the record had already been filed. Instead, it used abatement to create a procedural mechanism for a reliable determination. The appeal would then be reinstated after the supplemental reporter’s or clerk’s record containing the trial court’s determination was filed.

Holding

The court held that when a dispute arises after the appellate record has been filed over whether the record is incomplete or misleading, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3) authorizes the court of appeals to abate the appeal and submit that dispute to the trial court for resolution. The appellate court therefore abated the appeal and remanded the matter.

The court further held that the trial court is the proper tribunal to determine whether the disputed supplemental materials exist, whether they are relevant to the appeal, and whether supplementation should be allowed. In other words, the trial court must resolve the factual predicates for supplementation before the appellate court proceeds on the merits.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Dickinson is less about a novel doctrine than about disciplined appellate preservation and record management. In custody and divorce litigation, appellate risk often comes not from the legal argument but from an incomplete record that omits the hearing segment, exhibit, bench ruling, proffer, or filing necessary to show reversible error. Dickinson confirms that once the record is filed and a genuine dispute emerges about completeness, counsel should think in terms of a Rule 34.6(e)(3) abatement—not merely another informal request to the clerk or court reporter.

This matters in several recurring family-law contexts:

• In SAPCR trials, disputes often arise over whether an in-camera interview, a chambers conference, or an oral pronouncement was recorded and transcribed.
• In temporary-orders and enforcement hearings, exhibits are frequently marked but not clearly carried forward into the clerk’s or reporter’s record.
• In property cases, spreadsheets, tracing summaries, demonstratives, and admitted financial exhibits can go missing or appear in incomplete form.
• In modification proceedings, litigants may discover after filing that prior orders, associate-judge materials, or referral-related documents are absent from the clerk’s record.

The strategic lesson is twofold. First, build a record-supplementation trail early: written requests, designation specificity, follow-up correspondence, and verified motion practice. Second, when the problem becomes a factual dispute rather than a clerical omission, ask the appellate court to abate and remand for a trial-court determination framed in the language used in Dickinson: existence, relevance, and entitlement to supplementation.

For the appellee, Dickinson is equally important. If the appellant seeks to add material that was never admitted, never filed, or never considered, the response should focus on those trial-level facts. An abatement hearing creates the opportunity to confine the appellate record to what is properly part of it and to prevent supplementation from becoming an attempt to reconstruct the case with extra-record matter.

Checklists

When You Suspect the Appellate Record Is Incomplete

• Compare the filed clerk’s record and reporter’s record against your docket sheet, exhibit list, hearing notes, and trial notebook.
• Identify with precision what is missing: hearing date, volume, exhibit number, filing date, sealed item, bench conference, or oral ruling.
• Determine whether the omission concerns the clerk’s record, reporter’s record, or both.
• Confirm whether the disputed material was actually filed, offered, admitted, or otherwise made part of the trial-court proceedings.
• Assess whether the missing material is necessary to the appellate issues you intend to brief.

Building a Rule 34.6(e)(3) Record

• Make written requests to the clerk and court reporter that specifically identify the omitted material.
• Preserve copies of emails, letters, transmittals, invoices, designations, and any responses.
• File motions in the trial court if necessary to clarify what was filed, admitted, or considered.
• Use a verified motion in the appellate court when describing your efforts and the nature of the omission.
• Explain why the omission makes the record incomplete or misleading, not merely inconvenient.
• Tie each disputed item to an identified or anticipated appellate issue.

Framing the Abatement Request

• Ask the appellate court to abate and remand under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3).
• Request a trial-court determination on:
• whether the disputed materials exist;
• whether they are relevant to the appeal; and
• whether they should be included in a supplemental clerk’s or reporter’s record.
• Avoid overreaching by seeking inclusion of material that was never part of the trial-court record.
• Propose a reasonable deadline for the supplemental record to be filed.

Preparing for the Trial-Court Hearing on Record Disputes

• Bring file-stamped copies, exhibit logs, reporter’s notes references, hearing notices, and docket entries.
• Be prepared to show whether the item was filed, offered, admitted, proffered, or considered by the court.
• Distinguish between omitted record material and impermissible extra-record material.
• Address relevance directly by linking the material to the issues on appeal.
• Request a clear ruling or written determination that can be included in the supplemental record.

For Appellees Opposing Improper Supplementation

• Scrutinize whether the requested material was ever actually before the trial court.
• Object to attempts to add demonstratives, draft orders, correspondence, or other items not properly part of the record.
• Emphasize the limits of supplementation: completeness is the goal, not expansion of the evidentiary universe.
• Ask the trial court to make express determinations on existence, procedural status, and relevance.
• Preserve your opposition in the supplemental record for later appellate use.

Avoiding This Problem in Future Family-Law Appeals

• At trial, make sure exhibits are clearly marked, offered, admitted, and identified on the record.
• Confirm that off-the-record discussions affecting rulings are either recorded or summarized on the record.
• When dealing with sealed or sensitive family-law materials, confirm how they will be transmitted for appellate purposes.
• After judgment, promptly designate the record with hearing dates, exhibit ranges, and specific filings.
• Review the record as soon as it is filed rather than waiting until briefing is underway.
• Move quickly if an omission appears; delay can complicate briefing schedules and remedy.

Citation

Dickinson v. Dickinson, No. 03-25-00489-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Austin June 30, 2026, order & mem. op.) (per curiam) (abating and remanding).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~ca5a5383-e8ec-4781-9b31-38db6dceaebd~~