Protection of Sarah K. Wallis v. Alexis M. Etheridge

Protection of Sarah K. Wallis v. Alexis M. Etheridge, 12-25-00190-CV, March 11, 2026.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Smith County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a protective order application due to the appellant's failure to provide a reporter’s record, which compelled a presumption that the evidence supported the trial court's judgment. However, the court reversed a $1,110 attorney’s fee award assessed against the petitioner, holding that Texas Family Code § 81.005 does not authorize fees against a party unless they are found to have committed family violence—a finding conspicuously absent regarding the petitioner in this case.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision serves as a critical tactical reminder for family law litigators regarding the statutory boundaries of fee-shifting in protective order proceedings. Prevailing as a respondent does not automatically entitle a party to attorney’s fees under Chapter 81 of the Texas Family Code; the statute is not a "prevailing party" provision but rather a "bad actor" provision. For practitioners, this case emphasizes that if a respondent seeks fees after successfully defending against a protective order, they must either secure a finding of family violence against the petitioner or strictly adhere to the procedural and substantive requirements of Rule 13 or Chapter 10 sanctions.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Sarah K. Wallis filed an application for a protective order against Alexis M. Etheridge in Smith County. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Wallis failed to provide adequate facts to support the allegation of family violence and denied the application in its entirety. Despite this denial, the trial court’s final order required Wallis—the unsuccessful petitioner—to pay $1,110 in attorney’s fees to Etheridge’s counsel. Wallis appealed the order. Crucially, Wallis failed to make payment arrangements for the reporter’s record, leading the appellate court to submit the case based solely on the clerk’s record.

Issues Decided

1. Does the absence of a reporter’s record preclude an appellant from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the denial of a protective order?
2. Does Texas Family Code § 81.005 authorize a trial court to award attorney’s fees against a petitioner whose application is denied, absent a finding that the petitioner committed family violence?
3. Can an award of attorney's fees be sustained as a sanction if the order fails to describe the sanctionable conduct or explain the basis for the award?

Rules Applied

• Texas Family Code § 81.005(a): Provides that a court may assess reasonable attorney's fees against a party found to have committed family violence.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(c): Permits appellate courts to decide issues that do not require a reporter’s record if the clerk’s record is available.
• Vernco Constr., Inc. v. Nelson: Establishes that a reporter’s record is essential for any challenge involving evidence or arguments presented to a factfinder.
• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 & CP&RC § 10.005: Requires that any order imposing sanctions must state the particulars of the good cause or describe the specific sanctionable conduct.

Application

In evaluating the denial of the protective order, the Court of Appeals applied the long-standing presumption that in the absence of a reporter's record, the omitted evidence is presumed to support the trial court's findings. Because Wallis’s challenge to the denial was inherently evidentiary, her failure to secure the record was fatal to those issues. The court refused to look to external companion cases or unproven facts, sticking strictly to the record provided. The analysis shifted significantly regarding the attorney’s fees. Because the legality of the fee award could be determined by comparing the face of the order against the governing statute, a reporter's record was not required. The court conducted a statutory construction of Section 81.005, noting it only authorizes fees against a "party found to have committed family violence." Here, the trial court specifically found there was insufficient evidence of family violence. Consequently, there was no statutory "predicate" to charge Wallis with Etheridge's fees. Furthermore, the court noted that the fee award could not be saved by characterizing it as a sanction, as the order lacked the mandatory findings of bad faith or descriptions of sanctionable conduct required by Rule 13 or the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the protective order. The court held that an appellant bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to show error; without a reporter's record, the appellate court must assume the evidence supported the trial court's ruling on the merits. The court reversed the award of attorney’s fees against Wallis and remanded the issue. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying Texas Family Code § 81.005, as the statute does not permit a fee award against an unsuccessful petitioner without an underlying finding of family violence committed by that petitioner.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case offers two primary lessons. First, if you represent a respondent in a protective order case and wish to recover fees, you must build a record for sanctions or, alternatively, file a cross-application if the facts support a finding of family violence against the petitioner. Simply winning the defense is not enough to trigger Section 81.005. Second, from an appellate perspective, always ensure the reporter's record is paid for and filed if you intend to challenge a trial court’s factual findings. However, if the error is purely legal—such as a lack of statutory authority for fees—the appeal may still be viable on the clerk’s record alone.

Checklists

Preserving the Evidentiary Record

• Confirm the court reporter is present and actively recording the protective order hearing.
• File a timely request for the reporter’s record upon filing the notice of appeal.
• Ensure payment arrangements are documented with the court reporter to avoid the "presumption of sufficiency" trap.
• If the record is unavailable, focus appellate briefing on "legal error" discernible from the pleadings and the final order.

Securing Fees for a Respondent

• Evaluate the viability of a cross-application for a protective order to bring the petitioner under the scope of Section 81.005.
• If the petitioner’s application is groundless, file a formal Motion for Sanctions under Rule 13 or CP&RC Chapter 10.
• Ensure the final order contains specific, written findings detailing the "particulars" of the sanctionable conduct.
• Avoid relying on "equitable" fee arguments; in Texas, fee-shifting must be grounded in a specific statute or contract.

Citation

Protection of Sarah K. Wallis v. Alexis M. Etheridge, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Tyler 2026, no pet.) (Case No. 12-25-00190-CV).

Full Opinion

[Link to Full Opinion](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=8a0f657f-68aa-41b9-a8b3-0db236e5f4bb&MediaID=eb59f2e0-03c6-4cf2-8ec7-033b1a7f3312&coa=Twelfth Court of Appeals&DT=Opinion) ~~f4f92a29-9111-4aa7-b7db-ca59abfa574a~~