OPINION
This is аn appeal from an order requiring a judgment debtor to pay the gаrnishee bank’s attorney’s fees in a postjudgment garnishment action. By two points of error, the judgment debtor complains that the trial court should have taxed the bank’s attorney’s fees against the garnishor. We affirm.
Juan Lopez Butrón and several other plaintiffs (referred to collectively as “Lopez”) recovered a judgment against Mark Cantu, their former аttorney. Lopez applied for a postjudgment writ of garnishment to facilitate collecting that judgment. The trial court issued the writ, which Cantu attacked in an emergency motion to dissolve. After conducting a heаring, the trial court denied Cantu’s motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment. The garnishee bank subsequently filed an answer requesting recovery of its costs and аttorney’s fees under Rule 677 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
One month after the bank’s answer, Cantu filed a supersedeas bond to suspend execution of the underlying judgment. Once Cantu’s supersedeas bond was approved, Lopez moved to have the writ of garnishment dissolved. After conducting a hearing on Lopez’s motion to dissolve, the trial court ordered Cantu to pay the bank’s costs and attorney’s fees. By two points, Cantu attacks the trial court’s assessment of costs and attorney’s feеs and the court’s denial of his motion for new trial raising the same issue.
Under both points of error, Cantu contends that Rule 677 requires Lopez to bear the garnishee bank’s costs and attorney’s fees because Lopez moved to have the writ dissolved. We disagree.
Rule 677 provides as follows:
Where the garnisheе is discharged upon his answer, the costs of the proceeding, including а reasonable compensation to the garnishee, shall be tаxed against the plaintiff; where the answer of the garnishee *720 has not been controverted and the garnishee is held thereon, such costs shall be taxed against the defendant and included in the execution prоvided for in this section; where the answer is contested, the costs shall abide the issue of such contest.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 677. In this ease, the garnishee bank was not discharged upon its answer. In the time between the filing of the bank’s answer and the dissolution of the writ, Cantu filed a supersedeas bond and the trial court conducted a hearing on the matter. The garnishee bank was discharged upon these intervening events.
Because Rule 677 does not mandаte which party should bear the garnishee bank’s expenses in the circumstances of the instant case, the matter lies within the discretion of the trial court.
May v. Donalson,
The appellate record in this case does not include a statement of facts from the hearing on the motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment. Because Cantu has not brought forward a record sufficient tо completely address his two points of error, we presume that thе omitted portions of the record support the judgment.
DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.,
We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion from the limited record before us. Accordingly, we overrule both of Cantu’s points of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.