Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Terrell v. Duke
COA04
In Terrell v. Duke, the wife appealed a divorce decree raising numerous challenges to property division, conservatorship-related rulings, tort findings, and trial-management decisions. But no reporter’s record was filed after her effort to obtain it without cost failed. The court of appeals held that an appellant bears the burden to provide a sufficient record showing reversible error, and without a reporter’s record it must presume the omitted trial evidence supports the judgment. Applying that rule, the court concluded it could not review complaints that depended on trial evidence, including alleged conflict with a premarital agreement, alleged inconsistency with a prior SAPCR order not included in the record, legal- and factual-sufficiency challenges, and complaints about juror contact, mistrial, sanctions, and evidentiary rulings. Because the missing record foreclosed meaningful review, the court affirmed the divorce decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If your appeal depends on what happened at trial, you need the reporter’s record. In Texas family-law appeals, arguments about property division, conservatorship, prior orders, premarital agreements, tort findings, sanctions, and evidentiary error will usually fail without it because the appellate court will presume the missing evidence supports the judgment."
In the Matter of K.J.F., a Juvenile
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s order transferring K.J.F. from TJJD to TDCJ on a determinate sentence despite evidence of a low IQ and an asserted intellectual-disability claim. The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and focused on the statutory transfer factors, including the seriousness of the underlying offenses, K.J.F.’s extensive violent and disciplinary history in custody, the services TJJD provided, his minimal progress in treatment, and ongoing public-safety concerns. The court held that low IQ or alleged intellectual disability is relevant but not dispositive and does not categorically bar transfer when the overall record supports a finding that rehabilitation has failed and continued confinement in TJJD is not appropriate.
Litigation Takeaway
"Diagnostic labels rarely win family-law-style discretionary cases by themselves. Whether the issue is custody, modification, placement, or restrictions, courts will usually give more weight to actual conduct, service history, safety risks, and measurable functioning than to IQ scores or disability labels standing alone."
Next Level Automotive, LLC v. Allied Solutions, LLC
COA07
In Next Level Automotive, LLC v. Allied Solutions, LLC, the Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed a no-answer default judgment because the record did not affirmatively show strict compliance with Texas service rules. The return on file appeared to relate only to a writ of sequestration, not service of the citation and petition, and it contained impossible dates showing process was received and returned before the citation was even issued. Applying Rule 124 and Texas Supreme Court precedent requiring strict compliance in default cases, the court held the defective return failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Because valid service was not shown on the face of the record, the default judgment was void and the case was reversed and remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"Default judgments in Texas family-law cases are only as strong as the service record. Before taking a default divorce, SAPCR, modification, or enforcement order, make sure the clerk’s file clearly proves service of the correct citation and live petition, with a compliant return and coherent dates; if the record requires inference, the default is vulnerable to reversal."
In re Estate of Sherri Michele Gillette, Deceased
COA07
After a wife was killed before her divorce was finalized, her estate remained in an open probate proceeding while the administrator later sued the husband in district court over will and beneficiary issues. When the husband later sought similar relief in probate, the administrator argued res judicata based on the district-court judgments. The Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment, holding that res judicata failed because the movant did not conclusively prove the earlier district-court judgments were rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court explained that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not create subject-matter jurisdiction, and a district court’s general jurisdiction alone does not establish authority over probate-centered claims tied to an open estate administration.
Litigation Takeaway
"Before relying on res judicata in probate-adjacent family disputes, prove the first court actually had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. Declaratory-judgment labels and general district-court jurisdiction are not enough when the dispute belongs in probate."
Williams v. Nunnally-Williams
COA04
In Williams v. Nunnally-Williams, the former wife sought to enforce a divorce decree awarding her part of the husband’s thrift savings plan after she discovered most of the funds had been withdrawn before transfer. The husband argued the suit was barred by Family Code section 9.003(a)’s two-year deadline and filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The court rejected that approach, holding section 9.003(a) is not jurisdictional because the statute contains no clear statement tying timely filing to the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, it is a limitations defense that must be pleaded and proved as an affirmative defense. Even treating the husband’s plea as a summary-judgment motion under Rule 71, the court held he failed to conclusively prove that section 9.003(a) applied to the wife’s constructive-trust and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims or that the property fit the statute’s scope. The court affirmed the judgment for the wife.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not use Family Code section 9.003 as a plea-to-the-jurisdiction shortcut in post-divorce property enforcement cases. If you want to rely on it, plead limitations, use the correct procedural vehicle, and bring evidence proving the statute applies to each claim and each type of property at issue."
In re Environment Plus, Inc., R. Alexander Conant, and Joshua Eames-Cepero
COA03
In this mandamus proceeding, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a trial court in a garnishment case could not impose Rule 13 or Chapter 10 sanctions for allegedly sanctionable pleadings filed earlier in a separate contract case. The court analyzed sanctions jurisdiction as proceeding-specific, not dispute-specific, and concluded that once the original case was separate—and its sanctions request had already been dismissed after plenary power expired—the garnishment action could not be used to revive sanctions authority over filings from that prior cause. The portions of the sanctions order tied to the earlier contract suit were therefore void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and were vacated by conditional mandamus. The court denied mandamus as to sanctions based on conduct within the garnishment proceeding itself because those complaints were not jurisdictional and the relators failed to make the evidentiary showing required to prove that immediate payment would so impair litigation that appeal was inadequate.
Litigation Takeaway
"Sanctions under Rule 13 and Chapter 10 must be sought in the same cause number where the challenged filing occurred. In family-law practice, courts and lawyers cannot bundle conduct from a divorce, modification, enforcement, turnover, or garnishment matter into one later sanctions order just because the disputes involve the same parties. If a court sanctions conduct from a separate proceeding, that portion of the order is vulnerable as void and mandamus may be the fastest fix."
Terrell v. Duke
COA04
In Terrell v. Duke, the wife appealed a divorce decree that resolved property division, conservatorship, possession, child support, name-change, and competing tort claims after a lengthy jury trial. But she did not secure a reporter’s record. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that most of her complaints—including challenges tied to an alleged premarital agreement, a prior SAPCR order, evidentiary sufficiency, juror-contact complaints, mistrial, and sanctions—depended on the trial evidence or events occurring during trial. Applying longstanding Texas appellate rules, the court presumed the omitted evidence supported the judgment, explained that documents in the clerk’s record are not evidence merely because they were filed, and concluded it could not assess error or harm without the trial record. The court affirmed the decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to win a family-law appeal, you need the record. Without a reporter’s record, Texas appellate courts will usually presume the evidence supports the judgment, making challenges to property division, conservatorship, support, premarital-agreement enforcement, and trial-conduct rulings effectively dead on arrival."
In the Interest of B.M., III, a Child
COA06
After the child’s mother died, the child’s maternal uncle and father each sought conservatorship. The father challenged the uncle’s standing, arguing that as the surviving parent his own claim defeated any right of the uncle to bring the SAPCR. The court rejected that argument and analyzed standing under Texas Family Code § 102.003(a)(9), which turns on whether the claimant proved actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending within ninety days before suit. Because the evidence showed the child had lived with the uncle for years, remained with him after the mother’s death, and that the uncle exercised a continuous day-to-day caregiving role, the uncle satisfied the statute. The court held that a parent’s competing conservatorship request goes to the merits, not jurisdiction, and affirmed the judgment appointing the uncle sole managing conservator.
Litigation Takeaway
"In nonparent SAPCR cases, standing is claimant-specific and fact-driven: if your client can prove six months of actual care, control, and possession within the statutory window, a parent’s competing conservatorship claim does not automatically knock the case out. Build the record around daily caregiving facts, dates, and continuity—not just kinship or best-interest concerns."
In the Interest of O.P.R., A.J.R. and H.T.R., Children
COA05
In this Dallas divorce appeal, the court affirmed a decree giving the parents a 50/50 possession schedule and ordering no child support. Mother argued the trial court should have used a standard or expanded standard possession order and should not have deviated from guideline support. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court held the trial judge could credit evidence that Father was heavily involved in the children’s daily care, consistently exercised his time, and was the parent the children turned to for comfort, while also considering evidence of Mother’s supervision and medical-judgment lapses, including the peanut-allergy incident. Because the record supported the best-interest finding for equal possession, the court also held the trial court acted within its discretion in deviating from guideline child support and ordering that neither parent pay support. The court rejected Mother’s remaining procedural and constitutional complaints and affirmed the decree in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want 50/50 possession and no child support in a Texas family case, win it with detailed best-interest evidence about actual caregiving, availability, supervision, and how the schedule works in real life. On appeal, these rulings are highly deferential, so trial-level record building, damaging admissions, and error preservation usually decide the case."
In the Interest of B.R.M. and M.M.M., Children
COA07
In this SAPCR modification appeal after a jury trial, the mother challenged the evidence supporting an order naming the father sole managing conservator and awarding attorney’s fees against her. The Amarillo Court of Appeals focused first on preservation, explaining that after a jury trial a legal-sufficiency complaint must be preserved through a recognized vehicle such as a directed-verdict motion, JNOV, charge objection, motion to disregard, or a motion for new trial specifically raising no-evidence grounds. Although the mother filed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration, the court held that even if treated as a motion for new trial, it was too general and did not specifically assert legal insufficiency, so the complaint was not preserved. The court also held she failed to show harmful error regarding juror questions and alleged inattentiveness, and that her factual-sufficiency and attorney’s-fee complaints were inadequately briefed. The modification order and fee award were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a family-law case is tried to a jury, do not assume you can raise a no-evidence complaint for the first time on appeal. Preserve legal sufficiency with a specific directed-verdict motion, charge objection, JNOV, motion to disregard, or motion for new trial that clearly identifies the challenged finding and says why the evidence is legally insufficient; a generic motion to reconsider will not do the job."