OPINION
This is аn appeal from the entry of a final judgment in the 359th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County. The appellants bring forth thirty-six points of error. The points оf error brought forth by the appellants are overruled, the cross-point of appel-lees is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Appellees Don and Pam Wetzel (“The Wetzels”) brought suit against appellants Dale and Lynn Birran for failure to repay a loan made by the Wetzels to assist appellants in the purchase of a home. Trial was originally to a jury, but prior to the conclusion of the evidence, appellants announced that a settlement had been reached. The settlement terms were pronounced in opеn court, the settlement was approved by the parties, and judgment was rendered by the trial court. The judgment was originally signed March 18, 1993. Appellees subsequently filed a motion to modify the judgment to reflect a sum certain of damages, which motion was granted by order signed May 5, 1993. The final judgment reflеcting the modification was signed on that date as well.
Subsequently, appellants filed a motion to strike the judgment and for new trial, which was denied by writtеn order signed June 10, 1993. Appellants filed a general notice of intent to appeal on July 2, 1993. Appellants also filed several requests with thе district clerk regarding items to be included in the transcript, but no request for preparation of the statement of facts appears in thе record.
Appellants chose to file a partial statement of facts under Tex.R.App.P. 53(d). Having made that choice, they were thеn under a duty to comply with all the requirements of Rule 53(d), which reads as follows:
(d) Partial Statement. If appellant requests or prepares a partial statement of facts, he shall include in his request or proposal a statement of the points to be relied on and shall thereafter be limited to such points. If such statement is filed, there shall be a presumption on appeal that nothing omitted from the record is rеlevant to any of the points specified or to the disposition of the appeal. Any other party may designate additional pоrtions of the evidence to be included in the statement of facts, (emphasis added)
This Court is committed to liberality in the construction of briefing rules as set forth by this Court in
International Security Life Ins. Co. v. Robichau,
The issue in this case is whether a court of appeals mаy properly find reversible error when it does not have a complete record of the facts before it and the appellаnt has not complied with Tex.RApp.P. 53(d). We hold that it cannot. Accordingly, we grant the application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment for the Petitioner.
Because of the failure of appellant in Christiansen to either bring forward a complete stаtement of facts or to comply with the requirements of rule 53(d) by providing a list of points of error on which appellant intended to rely on аppeal, the Texas Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed the judgment of the trial court on all points; harmful error could not be determinеd in the absence of a complete statement of facts. The same holds true in the instant case. By virtue of the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in Christian-sen, it would be error for this Court to grant any of the relief sought by appellants under the state of the record in this case.
When the appellant requests or prepares a partial statement of facts, he must
*554
also file a designation of points that he intends to assert on appeal.
Matthews v. Land Tool Co.,
This Court followed
Christiansen
in
Schafer v. Conner,
The Texas Supreme Court denied Schafer’s application for writ of error and, likewise, held that an appellant cаnnot discharge his burden of showing that the judgment is erroneous in the absence of a complete or an agreed statement of facts.
Schafer,
Disregarding Tex.R.App.P. 53(e), appellants herein brought forth a record consisting of seven volumes of transсripts, thirteen volumes of depositions, nine volumes of exhibits, two volumes of written questions, and several excerpts from various hearings — but only 55 pages of statement of facts, which is undisputed as bеing only a partial statement of facts. There was no compliance with Rule 53(d) since appellant failed to designate the pоints of error to be relied upon for appeal. Therefore, based on the precedents herein cited, we overrule all of appellants’ thirty-six .points of error.
Appellees have brought forth a cross-point urging that this Court, pursuant to Tex. R.App.P. 84, should impose sanctions upon the appellants for filing a frivolous appeal. This highly emotional, protracted litigation is between a brother and a sistеr over payment of a loan and much animosity has been demonstrated. However, in reviewing the record brought before us, we do not feеl that the bringing of this appeal by appellants reaches the level of being brought'for delay, or without sufficient cause. Therefore, we overrule appellees’ cross-point seeking sanctions under Rule 84. “Such penalty should not be assessed ‘in the absence of a shоwing that the appeal was taken for delay and there was no sufficient cause for taking such appeal.’ ”
International Security Life Ins. Co.,
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. On a procedural note concerning Rule 53(d), the Texas Supreme Court did hold, however, that the statement of points to be relied upon may be filed with or in appellant's request for a partial statement of facts.