Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
McKeand v. Lansdown
COA14
In this procedural dispute, attorney David McKeand challenged a $10,000 sanctions order and a 2021 disqualification order stemming from ongoing litigation between Renee Sizemore and Daniel Lansdown. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the sanctions challenge under the mootness doctrine, finding that because the court had already granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate those sanctions, there was no longer a live controversy to resolve. Regarding the disqualification order, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order was issued during a prior modification phase that ended in a final judgment in 2022. The court held that McKeand's failure to challenge the disqualification at that time—either through mandamus or a timely appeal of the 2022 judgment—precluded him from raising it years later during an enforcement proceeding. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family law litigation is often divided into distinct phases—such as modification and enforcement—each ending in its own final judgment. To preserve your rights, you must challenge interlocutory orders (like the removal of an attorney) immediately or directly after the final judgment of that specific phase; you cannot wait until a subsequent proceeding years later to raise old grievances. Additionally, obtaining relief via a writ of mandamus will effectively end any parallel direct appeal on the same issue."
Travis Park Apartments v. Perez
COA03
In Travis Park Apartments v. Perez, the Third Court of Appeals examined whether an attorney's general testimony regarding work performed was sufficient to support a fee award. After her detailed billing records were excluded due to a discovery error, the claimant’s attorney testified from memory, providing a total of 141.2 hours and describing broad categories of work like 'discovery' and 'trial prep.' The court analyzed this under the 'lodestar' method, which requires specific evidence of which tasks were performed, by whom, and when. The court held that general testimony is legally insufficient to support a fee award and reversed the judgment, remanding the case for a new trial on the issue of fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"To win and keep an attorney’s fee award in Texas, 'generalities' are not enough. If you cannot produce detailed billing records, you must be prepared to testify with granular precision about exactly how many hours were spent on specific individual tasks; providing aggregate totals for broad categories like 'litigation' or 'discovery' will likely lead to your fee award being overturned on appeal."
Quest Trust Company, for the benefit of Caroline Allison IRA #2593721 v. Karpova
COA03
In this case, Quest Trust Company, acting as trustee for a self-directed IRA (SDIRA), sought to evict a holdover occupant from a property purchased at a foreclosure sale. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that an IRA is merely an 'inanimate object' or bank account that lacks the legal standing to sue. On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The court analyzed federal tax law and Texas trust statutes to determine that an IRA functions as a trust. Because the IRA was the actual purchaser of the property, it suffered a 'concrete injury' sufficient for standing. Furthermore, the court clarified that any challenge to the IRA's legal 'personality' is a matter of procedural capacity, which allows for a correction of the lawsuit's styling rather than a total dismissal.
Litigation Takeaway
"When litigating over real estate held within a self-directed IRA—a common scenario in high-net-worth property divisions—ensure the plaintiff is styled as the 'Trustee for the benefit of the IRA.' If the opposing party challenges the IRA's ability to sue, this case confirms that such an error is a fixable 'capacity' issue, not a jurisdictional 'standing' defect that would end the case."
Burns v. Standard Casualty Company
COA14
In Burns v. Standard Casualty Company, a group of homeowners and their law firm faced significant financial sanctions after filing a lawsuit that a court deemed 'groundless.' The dispute began when the homeowners claimed that a frozen pipe burst during a winter storm should be classified as an 'explosion' under their insurance policy to secure higher coverage. The trial court found no evidence to support this claim and ruled that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions against the clients and their attorneys, largely because the lawyers failed to bring a court reporter to the hearing. Without a record of the evidence, the appellate court was forced to presume the trial judge's decision was correct.
Litigation Takeaway
"Baseless 'kitchen sink' legal claims can lead to expensive sanctions against both the client and the law firm. To protect your rights, always ensure a court reporter is present at hearings to record the evidence; otherwise, you lose your ability to challenge an unfair ruling on appeal."
Pimentel v. Maverick Maintenance & Supply, LLC
COA04
In Pimentel v. Maverick Maintenance & Supply, LLC, the plaintiff filed suit in Harris County based on the defendant's principal office location. The defendants successfully moved to transfer the case to Karnes County by arguing that the claims were legally barred by an affirmative defense, effectively 'mini-trialing' the case at the venue stage. The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the transfer, holding that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.064(a) expressly prohibits courts from considering the ultimate merits of a claim when determining venue. The court concluded that if venue facts are established, a trial court must retain the case regardless of the claim's perceived weakness.
Litigation Takeaway
"Venue is fixed by facts—like where a business is located—not by whether your claims are likely to win. You can stop an opponent from transferring your case by showing that venue rules are satisfied, even if they argue your underlying lawsuit is meritless or barred by legal defenses."
K. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In K. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the Third Court of Appeals addressed whether a permanent injunction banning all contact between a mother and her child could be dismissed as a "frivolous" appeal. The mother's attorney filed an Anders brief, suggesting there were no valid legal arguments to challenge the trial court's order. However, the appellate court disagreed, citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent that treats indefinite no-contact orders with the same constitutional weight as the termination of parental rights. The court held that such restrictive orders require "clear and convincing" evidence and a specific finding that a total ban is the least restrictive means to protect the child. Consequently, the court rejected the Anders brief and ordered the appointment of new counsel to argue the merits of the case.
Litigation Takeaway
"An indefinite or long-term "no-contact" order is effectively the "death penalty" of parental rights; it requires the highest evidentiary standard—clear and convincing evidence—and must be the least restrictive option available to the court."
Gonzales v. State
COA04
In Gonzales v. State, a defendant sought to suppress drug evidence discovered in his bag following a warrantless arrest, arguing that the police lacked probable cause because they could not establish an 'affirmative link' between him and drug paraphernalia found nearby on the ground. The San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the procedural role of the 'affirmative link' doctrine, determining it is a standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction at trial, rather than a basis for pretrial suppression. The court held that the presence of drug paraphernalia in plain view and within arm’s reach provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest under the totality of the circumstances, making the subsequent search of the defendant's personal effects a valid search incident to arrest.
Litigation Takeaway
"The 'affirmative link' doctrine is a trial defense regarding the sufficiency of evidence, not a pretrial tool to suppress contraband; therefore, evidence of drugs found in proximity to a party remains admissible and relevant in family law proceedings regardless of whether the party 'owned' the substances."
In Re Richard Haddad
COA04
After a father was awarded the right to designate his child’s primary residence and moved to Virginia, the mother filed for a modification within months of the final order. She alleged communication issues and presented photos of bruises (which were later linked to the child's martial arts activities). The trial court granted temporary orders moving the child back to Texas. On appeal, the Fourth Court of Appeals found that the mother's affidavit failed to meet the strict requirements of Texas Family Code Section 156.102, which requires a showing of physical endangerment or significant emotional impairment for modifications sought within one year of a final order. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, vacating the trial court's orders.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas, the law prioritizes custodial stability during the first year after a final order; to change a child's primary residence during this 'cooling-off period,' a parent must provide specific, factual evidence of endangerment or significant emotional harm, rather than just general complaints about co-parenting friction."
Rolling Oaks Mall LLC v. Bexar Appraisal District
COA04
A property owner challenged a tax appraisal in state court before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and requesting a federal valuation under 11 U.S.C. § 505. The bankruptcy court dismissed the federal claim 'with prejudice' to abstain in favor of the state court proceeding, leading the taxing authority to argue that res judicata barred the state court suit. The Court of Appeals analyzed the nature of discretionary abstention, concluding that because the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction for administrative reasons rather than deciding the property's value, there was no final adjudication on the merits. The court held that the federal dismissal did not trigger res judicata or collateral estoppel, allowing the state court valuation to proceed.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bankruptcy court's 'dismissal with prejudice' based on discretionary abstention is a jurisdictional hand-off, not a merits-based win; family law practitioners can use this to defeat a spouse's attempt to use federal bankruptcy filings to block state court property valuations."
Navarro v. State
COA04
In Navarro v. State, Alan Angelo Navarro appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from his ex-wife regarding his history of domestic violence. While Navarro had a 'running objection' to evidence regarding his relationship with the current complainant, the court analyzed the shift in the trial's legal context. Because Navarro presented witnesses to testify that he was a 'changed' and 'non-violent' man, he 'opened the door' to character rebuttal. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the original running objection did not preserve the error for this new category of character evidence involving a third party, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a party attempts to portray themselves as a 'changed person' or 'non-violent' in court, they effectively waive protections against their past history being introduced. Furthermore, litigators must remember that a 'running objection' to evidence about the current relationship will not protect the record if the other side introduces evidence about a former spouse; a new, specific objection is required to preserve the issue for appeal."