How does a party with the burden of proof preserve error when a Texas trial court fails to submit a jury question?

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278, the party with the burden of proof on a ground of recovery must request the question in writing, in substantially correct wording, and tender it to the court. A mere oral objection to the omission is insufficient to preserve error for a ground of recovery upon which the complaining party bears the burden of proof.

What is the legal distinction between an objection and a request for purposes of preserving Texas jury charge error?

An objection is typically sufficient to preserve error regarding a defective question or instruction already included in the charge. However, if a question is omitted entirely, the party relying on that ground of recovery must request and tender the submission in writing to satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278.

Can a trial court's mid-trial ruling on a directed verdict excuse a party's failure to tender a written jury question in Texas?

Generally, no. Texas appellate courts have held that if an issue remains viable following a motion for directed verdict, the party with the burden of proof must be prepared to timely request and tender the necessary jury questions. A 'compressed window' of time or a mid-trial shift in the court's ruling does not excuse the mandatory written tender requirement of Rule 278.

What constitutes a 'reasonable time' for counsel to examine and object to a jury charge under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 272?

Rule 272 requires the trial court to provide the parties a reasonable time to examine and object to the charge before it is read to the jury. Appellate courts review the time provided under an abuse of discretion standard, and error is generally not preserved unless the record shows the trial court's conduct actually foreclosed a realistic opportunity to tender written requests.

Where can a Texas practitioner find the 'substantially correct wording' for a jury question on piercing the corporate veil?

The Texas Pattern Jury Charges (PJC) provide standardized language for these issues, specifically PJC 108.1 regarding the disregard of the corporate veil and PJC 108.2 for contract-related cases. Using PJC-based language is the standard method for ensuring a requested question is in 'substantially correct wording' under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rehab Squad General Contractors, LLC v. Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and Derek Pham

Q: What is the litigation takeaway from Rehab Squad General Contractors, LLC v. Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and Derek Pham?

A trial brief is not a substitute for a formal jury charge request; to preserve a theory of recovery for appeal, you must physically tender the specific, "substantially correct" written question to the trial judge.

Q: What is the summary of Rehab Squad General Contractors, LLC v. Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and Derek Pham?

In this contract and "alter ego" dispute, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether a plaintiff preserved its right to appeal the omission of a jury question regarding piercing the corporate veil. Despite filing a trial brief arguing the sufficiency of the evidence, the plaintiff failed to tender a written, "substantially correct" question as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278. The court analyzed the procedural requirements for preservation of error, concluding that oral objections and trial briefs regarding the evidence cannot substitute for the formal written tender of a requested jury question. The court held that the issue was waived on appeal, emphasizing that even compressed trial timelines do not excuse the proponent's burden to provide specific charge language to the trial court.

Q: Is a written request required to preserve error for the omission of a 'piercing the corporate veil' question from a Texas jury charge?

Yes. Because the party seeking to disregard a corporate entity generally bears the burden of proof, Rule 278 requires that party to request and tender a written question in substantially correct form. Failure to provide a written tender, even if the issue was discussed during the charge conference, generally waives the complaint on appeal.

Rehab Squad General Contractors, LLC v. Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and Derek Pham, 05-25-00091-CV, March 17, 2026.

On appeal from 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed that a party seeking to submit a theory of recovery to a jury—specifically piercing the corporate veil—waives that issue on appeal if they fail to tender a written question in substantially correct wording as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278. Even where a trial court’s procedural rulings or "mid-trial reversals" create a compressed timeline, the burden remains on the proponent to present the specific charge language to the court to preserve error.

Relevance to Family Law

In high-net-worth divorce litigation, the "marital shield" often takes the form of closely held LLCs or family limited partnerships used to obfuscate the characterization of assets or to shield separate property from reimbursement claims. When a spouse attempts to pierce the corporate veil or establish an "alter ego" theory to pull business assets into the community estate or hold the other spouse personally liable for waste, the jury charge is the ultimate battlefield. This case serves as a stark reminder that trial briefs and oral arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence are insufficient; if the family law practitioner fails to provide the court with a written, "substantially correct" PJC-based question on veil-piercing, the issue is lost for appeal, potentially leaving millions in assets unreachable.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Rehab Squad sued Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and its principal, Derek Pham, asserting several claims including breach of contract and "disregard of the corporate entity" (piercing the corporate veil). At the close of Rehab Squad’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the veil-piercing claim. The trial court initially granted the motion but shortly thereafter reversed itself, stating the issue would likely reach the jury but adding a cautious "we’ll see." Following an off-the-record charge conference, Rehab Squad’s counsel initially stated there were no objections to the charge. However, the next morning, Rehab Squad filed a trial brief arguing that the evidence was sufficient to submit the veil-piercing issue. The trial court noted that Rehab Squad had never actually submitted a proposed written question for the charge. Despite an exchange where the court pointed out the existence of a specific Pattern Jury Charge (PJC) for veil piercing, Rehab Squad’s counsel failed to tender a written question in substantially correct wording. The jury eventually found for Rehab Squad against the LLC but not against Pham personally, as no veil-piercing question was submitted.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether Rehab Squad preserved error regarding the trial court’s refusal to submit a jury question on piercing the corporate veil. Specifically, the court examined whether a trial brief and oral objections suffice when a party fails to comply with the written tender requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278, and whether the trial court's mid-trial reversal of a directed verdict made compliance with Rule 278 "impossible."

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 278: This rule mandates that the failure to submit a question is not a ground for reversal unless its submission, in substantially correct wording, has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.
Preservation of Error: The party with the burden of proof on a ground of recovery (the plaintiff or the party seeking to pierce the veil) must request the issue be submitted. An objection is sufficient to preserve error regarding a defective question, but a written request and tender is required when a question is omitted entirely.
Abuse of Discretion: Trial court rulings on the jury charge are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, determined by whether the court acted without reference to guiding rules and principles.

Application

The Dallas Court of Appeals rejected Rehab Squad's argument that the trial court's "mid-trial reversal" made compliance with Rule 278 impossible. The court reasoned that when the trial court denied the directed verdict and indicated the issue might go to the jury, Rehab Squad was effectively put on notice that it needed to be prepared with the necessary charge language. The legal story here is one of procedural forfeiture. While Rehab Squad focused on the "compressed window" of the trial and the judge's shifting rulings, the appellate court focused on the formal charge conference. When the trial court explicitly asked if counsel had proposed language, the counsel referred to a definition of the entity rather than the substantive PJC question required for veil piercing. The court emphasized that a trial brief arguing why an issue should be submitted does not substitute for the actual wording of the question being tendered in writing. Because Rehab Squad bore the burden of proof on the alter-ego theory, its failure to hand a written, correctly worded question to the judge was a fatal procedural lapse.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that Rehab Squad failed to preserve its complaint for appellate review because it did not tender a written question on piercing the corporate veil in substantially correct wording. The court further held that the trial court did not make compliance with Rule 278 impossible. Instead, the trial court’s uncertainty regarding the directed verdict should have prompted the party to be more diligent in preparing its proposed charge.

Practical Application

This case demonstrates the danger of relying on the "flow" of trial to address charge issues. In family law cases involving complex property structures:

Characterization Disputes: If you are alleging that a corporation is the alter ego of a spouse to include its assets in the community estate, you must have the PJC 205.1 or 205.2 (or the equivalent business PJC) questions ready.
Waste and Fraud: When seeking to hold a spouse personally liable for the debts of a controlled entity or vice versa, the "request and tender" rule applies.
The "Off-the-Record" Trap: The court noted an off-the-record conference occurred. Always ensure that the final results of those conferences are memorialized on the record with specific written tenders for any omitted questions.

Checklists

Pre-Trial Charge Preparation

Identify every independent ground of recovery or defense where your client bears the burden of proof.
Draft "substantially correct" questions, definitions, and instructions based on the Texas Pattern Jury Charges (PJC).
Prepare a "Charge Folder" containing individual written requests for each contested issue, ready to be physically handed to the court and the court reporter.

Preserving Error During the Charge Conference

Distinguish between "Objections" and "Requests": Use objections for the other side's defective questions; use written requests/tenders for your own omitted questions.
If the court grants a directed verdict against you mid-trial, keep your proposed question ready in case the court changes its mind before the charge is read.
Confirm on the record that you are tendering a specific written instrument to the court.
Ensure the trial court makes a clear ruling on the record ("Denied") for each tendered question.

Citation

Rehab Squad General Contractors, LLC v. Phamily Capital Partners, LLC and Derek Pham, 05-25-00091-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas March 17, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Link to Full Opinion

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized in divorce cases involving "business-owning spouses" who hide behind the corporate form. If the petitioner spouse fails to submit a written, PJC-compliant "Alter Ego" or "Sham to Perpetrate a Fraud" question at the charge conference, the respondent spouse can effectively lock in the corporate shield on appeal, regardless of how much evidence of commingling or "piggy-bank" behavior was presented at trial. For the defense, this case reinforces that you should never "help" the other side fix their charge. If they argue the merits in a trial brief but forget to tender the question, stay silent, let them waive the issue, and then move for judgment on the verdict that lacks the necessary findings to pierce the entity. ~~4983e121-d7c6-44fa-82ce-122c2cbb14fd~~