Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
In the Interest of G.M.D. & V.D., Children and In the Interest of Z.J.M., A Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her three children. The case centered on the mother's long history of heroin addiction and untreated mental health crises, including a suicide attempt occurring while the children were present. In its analysis, the appellate court first determined that because the mother failed to challenge every legal "predicate ground" cited by the trial court in her appeal, those unchallenged findings became binding. Furthermore, applying the 'Holley' factors, the court found that the mother's recurring drug relapses and mental instability posed a significant danger to the children, making termination necessary for their safety and best interests.
Litigation Takeaway
"When appealing a termination of parental rights, an appellant must challenge every individual predicate ground found by the trial court; failing to contest even one ground can lead to an automatic affirmance. Additionally, evidence of chronic substance abuse and untreated mental illness remains a powerful factor in establishing that termination is in a child's best interest."
In The Interest of K.F.N., K.D.N., and K.N., Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order terminating a mother's parental rights based on a history of physical abuse and unresolved substance dependency. Although the mother maintained a documented bond with her children and partially completed her court-ordered service plan, the court applied the Holley factors to determine that the children's needs for safety and stability outweighed the parental relationship. The court held that evidence of the mother’s prior criminal history involving injury to a child and her failure to remain sober during the proceedings was legally and factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding for termination.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent-child bond does not act as a "veto" against the termination of parental rights; courts prioritize a child's need for a safe, drug-free environment over emotional ties when a parent has a history of endangerment or ongoing substance abuse."
Moir Watershed Services, LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC and Spencer Hofmann
COA10
In Moir Watershed Servs., LLC v. Law Office of Heath Gurinsky, PLLC, a Texas-based company sued a New York law firm in a Texas court for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The New York firm challenged the lawsuit, arguing that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them since they were based in New York and the work was performed there. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that merely entering into a contract with a Texas resident does not establish the 'purposeful availment' necessary for jurisdiction. The court concluded that because the legal services were performed outside of Texas and the defendants did not specifically target the Texas market, they lacked the minimum contacts required to be sued in a Texas forum.
Litigation Takeaway
"Hiring an out-of-state attorney or expert for your legal matter does not guarantee you can sue them in Texas if something goes wrong. If their work is performed in their home state and they haven't purposefully reached into Texas to conduct business, you may be forced to litigate any malpractice or fee disputes in their jurisdiction, significantly increasing your costs and risks."
Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy
COA01
In a delinquent-tax foreclosure case, Wanda Joyce Smith appeared at a trial setting and testified the judge postponed the matter to conduct a title search and told her a new hearing would be set, so she left expecting further notice. The court later signed a “final” judgment without notifying her of any new setting, leading to foreclosure and sale of the property; Smith learned of the judgment months later during eviction proceedings and filed a bill of review to set aside the judgment for lack of notice/due process. The trial court granted summary judgment against the bill of review and also disposed of Smith’s newly pleaded counterclaims and third-party claims. On appeal, the court applied the traditional bill-of-review elements (meritorious defense; prevented by fraud/accident/wrongful act or official mistake; unmixed with petitioner’s negligence) and the due-process framework of Caldwell v. Barnes for lack of service/notice. The court held Smith’s affidavit testimony that the trial court represented a future hearing would be set, yet later entered judgment without further notice, raised a genuine issue of material fact on “official mistake” and lack of negligence, making summary judgment improper on the bill of review. Separately, relying on the principle that a bill of review is a narrow, independent equitable proceeding limited to vacating or denying the challenged judgment, the court held the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate new counterclaims and third-party claims before the underlying judgment was set aside; those claims were dismissed as premature.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bill of review is a two-step, narrow remedy: first you must prove the prior judgment should be vacated (often by showing lack of notice tied to “official mistake”); only after vacatur can the court reach the underlying merits or any new claims. If the petitioner offers specific testimony that the court/court staff said the case was “reset” or a new setting would be provided, that evidence can defeat summary judgment. If the bill of review pleading tries to bundle in new tort/contract/property claims or add new parties, move to dismiss them—jurisdiction is limited until the judgment is actually set aside."
Reginald Donell Rice v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's lawsuit, holding that Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows for the immediate dismissal of claims supported by false affidavits of poverty. The court analyzed the conflict between the specific requirements of Chapter 14 and the general procedural protections of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. It concluded that because Chapter 14 is a specialized statute designed to curb frivolous inmate litigation, trial courts have the discretion to dismiss such suits without holding an evidentiary hearing or requiring service of process if the inmate's certified trust account statement contradicts their claimed income.
Litigation Takeaway
"When facing a family law filing from an incarcerated parent, immediately subpoena their certified inmate trust account statement; any discrepancy between their deposits and their affidavit of indigence allows for a dismissal under Chapter 14 without the need for a hearing or service of process."
In the Matter of Marriage of Melissa Ramirez and Silvestre Fermin Torres and In the Interest of R.S.T. and A.D.T, Children
COA13
In a family law dispute, Melissa Ramirez filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. Despite this, the trial court ordered her to pay half of the mediation fees without first holding an evidentiary hearing or issuing detailed findings as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f). Ramirez challenged the order using Rule 145(g)'s expedited review process. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that because the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural steps of Rule 145(f), the resulting order was not technically issued 'under this rule,' making the expedited appellate process unavailable.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a trial court orders an indigent party to pay costs (such as mediation or amicus attorney fees) without first holding a formal hearing or providing detailed factual findings, you cannot use the expedited motion process in Rule 145(g) to challenge the order; instead, you must file a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the court to follow proper procedure."
Cristy West v. Jimmie Ward
COA09
In West v. Ward, Cristy West filed for divorce claiming an informal (common law) marriage to professional football player Jimmie Ward. Ward denied the marriage existed, asserting they were only engaged. The court analyzed the case under Texas Family Code § 2.401(a)(2), focusing on whether there was a "present agreement" to be married. Despite social media posts where the parties used terms like 'wifey,' the court found that West's own private text messages—where she referred to herself as 'single' and discussed a 'future' wedding—contradicted the claim of a present marriage. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict that no marriage existed, holding that a future intent to marry is not a substitute for a current agreement to be married.
Litigation Takeaway
"Private communications often carry more weight than social media 'holding out.' Even if you represent yourselves as married on Instagram, private texts referring to each other as 'fiancé' or identifying as 'single' can be fatal to a common law marriage claim."
Vallecillo v. Gonzalez
COA04
In Vallecillo v. Gonzalez, an appellant seeking to challenge a take-nothing judgment submitted only a partial reporter's record to the appellate court to save on transcript costs. However, the appellant failed to file a contemporaneous 'statement of points or issues' as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c). The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the common-law presumption that any omitted portions of a record are presumed to support the trial court's judgment. Because the appellant's own case-in-chief was among the missing volumes and he failed to trigger the 'safe harbor' protections of Rule 34.6, the court held it was legally impossible to sustain his sufficiency challenges and affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Litigation Takeaway
"When appealing a case with a partial transcript, you must file a formal 'Statement of Points or Issues'; otherwise, the court will automatically presume that the missing testimony supports the judge's original decision, likely tanking your appeal."
In the Interest of O.H.R.S., a Child
COA04
In a dispute over the conservatorship of a child, O.H.R.S., a maternal aunt and her spouse challenged a jury's decision to award custody to the child's maternal sister and her husband. The aunt argued for the first time on appeal that the sister lacked 'standing'—the legal right to participate in the lawsuit—under the Texas Family Code. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed whether standing could be waived if not raised during the trial and whether the sister met the statutory requirements for intervention. The court held that standing is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived and can be challenged at any stage, including after a verdict. Because the sister failed to prove she had 'substantial past contact' with the child at the time she filed her intervention, the court reversed the custody award and ruled the trial court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family law, 'standing' is not just a technicality—it is a jurisdictional requirement that can never be waived. Even if you win a favorable jury verdict on the child's best interests, that victory can be completely overturned on appeal if you did not meet the strict statutory requirements to join the lawsuit at the very moment you filed your petition."
Pena v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Pena v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could assess $1,600 in attorney’s fees and duplicate court costs against a defendant who had been determined indigent and appointed counsel. The legal issues arose from two criminal cases adjudicated in a single, consolidated proceeding. The court analyzed Texas law, which presumes that a party remains indigent throughout the proceedings unless a 'material change' in financial circumstances is proven. Additionally, the court reviewed statutory prohibitions against assessing court costs multiple times for cases heard together. The court held that the trial court erred by assessing attorney's fees without evidence of the defendant's ability to pay and by double-charging court costs, resulting in a modification of the judgments to strike the improper fees and costs.
Litigation Takeaway
"When multiple legal matters are heard in a single trial, always audit the clerk’s bill of costs to ensure you aren't being double-charged for administrative fees. Furthermore, if a party has filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs (Rule 145), they are generally shielded from paying attorney's fees unless the opposing party can prove a material improvement in their financial situation."