Opinion Library

In The Interest of D.K.C., Appellant

COA14

After a family law case was dismissed for want of prosecution, the appellant filed a timely motion to reinstate but failed to include a required verification. Although a verified amendment was filed later, it fell outside the thirty-day window required by law. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) and concluded that an unverified motion is a nullity for the purpose of extending the appellate timetable. The court held that because the initial motion was defective and the subsequent amendment was untimely, the deadline to appeal remained thirty days from the dismissal order, leaving the court without jurisdiction to hear the late appeal.

Litigation Takeaway

"Never treat a motion to reinstate as a mere formality; it must be verified (signed under oath) and filed within thirty days of the dismissal order to protect your right to appeal. A late-filed verification cannot retroactively save your appellate timetable, meaning a simple procedural oversight can permanently bar your day in court."

In Re Mitchell William Blakeley

COA09

In a divorce and custody dispute, the husband (Relator) sought a writ of mandamus to overturn two trial court orders: one granting the wife interim attorney's fees and another denying his request to designate an expert witness after the deadline. The Ninth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the strict mandamus standard, which requires showing both a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy through a standard appeal. The court found that the trial court acted within its broad discretion regarding interim fees under the Texas Family Code and that the Relator failed to meet the burden for late expert designation under Rule 193.6. Ultimately, the court held that the Relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief, denying the petition.

Litigation Takeaway

"Trial courts have vast discretion over temporary orders and discovery schedules; challenging these rulings mid-case via mandamus is extremely difficult unless you can prove the trial court's decision was completely arbitrary or effectively ends your case."

Espinoza v. FGMS Holdings, LLC

COA13

Alberto Espinoza filed a petition to challenge a tax sale of his homestead and submitted a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Despite this, the trial court ordered him to deposit $60,237.44 into the court registry or face the dismissal of his claims with prejudice. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Rule 145, which protects indigent parties from "pay-to-play" orders unless the court follows strict procedural safeguards, including conducting an evidentiary hearing and making specific findings regarding the party's actual ability to pay. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with these mandatory procedures and conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate the order.

Litigation Takeaway

"A trial court cannot force an indigent litigant who has filed a Rule 145 Statement to pay a deposit into the court registry—whether for expert fees, amicus attorneys, or receivers—without first holding a hearing and making specific findings that the party actually has the financial means to pay. If an order lacks these findings or the required notice of the right to challenge, it is a clear abuse of discretion reviewable by mandamus."

Child Support

In the Interest of P.J.G., A Child

COA13

In this family law case, a father representing himself appealed a court order for child support and custody (SAPCR), claiming he did not consent to the Title IV-D child support system and alleging that federal funding creates a judicial conflict of interest. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i), which requires a party to provide clear legal arguments supported by relevant authority. The court found that the father's arguments relied on 'sovereign citizen' rhetoric and federal cases that did not support his claims. Because he failed to provide a substantive legal analysis of how the trial court actually erred, the appellate court held that he waived his right to challenge the order and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Litigation Takeaway

"Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; failing to provide a clear, legally-supported roadmap of trial court errors in an appellate brief will result in a waiver of those claims, regardless of their perceived constitutional importance."

Termination of Parental Rights

Alvarez v. State

COA06

In Alvarez v. State, the Sixth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant's seven-year confinement of a child in a van, which resulted in severe physical stunting and profound developmental delays, supported a conviction for injury to a child. The court analyzed the 'cumulative force' of the evidence, including the child’s lack of education, social isolation, and extreme malnutrition. The court held that such environmental deprivation constitutes both 'serious bodily injury' and 'serious mental deficiency' under the Texas Penal Code, affirming the defendant's first-degree felony conviction because the injuries were a direct result of intentional acts and the omission of necessary care.

Litigation Takeaway

"Severe neglect, educational deprivation, and social isolation can be legally classified as 'serious mental deficiency' and 'serious bodily injury.' This provides a powerful evidentiary framework for family law practitioners to seek the termination of parental rights or secure protective orders by framing 'off-the-grid' isolation not as a lifestyle choice, but as intentional harm."

January 13, 2026

In re David Rogers

SCOTX

David Rogers sought mandamus relief after a party chair rejected his Texas Supreme Court primary application based on allegedly deficient petition signatures. The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that mandamus could not resolve the parties’ genuine, material factual dispute over the signatures’ validity, particularly where the trial court had already declined relief and Rogers bypassed the ordinary appellate route. The Court also applied Texas Election Code § 172.0222(i) and held that an application filed in the final hours before the deadline carried no ministerial right to cure defects after the deadline. Because Rogers did not pursue relief with the “unusual dispatch” required in a time-sensitive election matter, the Court denied mandamus relief.

Litigation Takeaway

"Mandamus is not a vehicle for retrying disputed facts or credibility determinations. A party seeking emergency appellate relief should build an undisputed record, use the ordinary appellate path when available, and act immediately; delay and last-minute filing defects can defeat relief regardless of the underlying claim’s potential merit."