Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
Strategy Category
358 opinions found
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."
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."
Shamrock Enterprises, LLC d/b/a FRSTeam Gulfcoast/LA v. Top Notch Movers, LLC
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed a no-answer default judgment against Shamrock Enterprises, LLC, obtained through Secretary-of-State substituted service, because the face of the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with the forwarding requirements of the Business Organizations Code § 5.253. The forwarding of process was not shown to be sent to the defendant's most recent address on file with the Secretary of State.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas family law practitioners must ensure strict compliance with statutory forwarding requirements in cases involving default judgments using substituted service. Specifically, for Texas Secretary-of-State service, the record must explicitly show forwarding to the most recent address on file with the Secretary of State, as lacking this can render a default judgment subject to reversal on restricted appeal."
In re David Rogers
Supreme Court of Texas
Mandamus was denied because the relief sought required the Supreme Court to resolve genuinely disputed, material facts, which is generally incompatible with mandamus review. The Court also refused to impose a ministerial duty or find a clear abuse of discretion requiring acceptance of a post-deadline amended filing.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is not a substitute for proving facts in the trial court, and delay, especially tactical delay after an adverse ruling, can be fatal when asking an appellate court to act quickly. Relators must build a record fast and pursue the correct procedure, including expedited appeal when needed."
Coventry Court, LLC v. The Downs of Hillcrest Residential Association, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that the court of appeals must determine the validity of an appellate waiver and whether a consent judgment was rendered without consent before dismissing an appeal. This decision impacts family law settlements involving appellate waivers.
Litigation Takeaway
"If an appeal is met with a 'waived it' motion, factual development on waiver validity can be forced. When enforcing a settlement, create a record that can withstand 'no consent/void judgment' challenges."
4 Families of Hobby, LLC, 4 Families of Houston, LLC, and Pappas Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Houston, Texas
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs deserved jurisdictional discovery on a key fact question regarding municipal expenditures under Chapter 252. Given that this fact is crucial to the application of Chapter 252's bid-law immunity waiver, the Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and returned the case for jurisdictional discovery.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law litigators should use this case as a strategic guide for standing and plea battles where decisive, fact-dependent elements exist, often within the opponent's control. The opinion reinforces the necessity for allowing focused jurisdictional discovery when jurisdiction relies on specific facts."
In re Estate of Guadalupe Lopez, Sr., Deceased
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that admitting expert testimony on the existence of an informal (common-law) marriage was an abuse of discretion where the issue was within the ordinary juror’s common knowledge, and that the error was harmful.
Litigation Takeaway
"There are limits on expert testimony about legal status conclusions that jurors can resolve from ordinary facts. The opinion cautions against using former judges or similarly influential witnesses to opine on legal presumptions or ultimate marital-status questions"
D.V. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Supreme Court of Texas
The Texas Supreme Court held that a trial court may not terminate parental rights when the Department’s designated representative made an unequivocal, unrepudiated statement at trial withdrawing termination as requested relief. Termination in such circumstances is impermissible unless the Department affirmatively repudiates that withdrawal on the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"This decision requires immediate adjustments in trial practice when DFPS participates in child-related proceedings. DFPS counsel must ensure their witnesses’ testimony about relief is consistent with counsel’s position or must promptly and explicitly correct the record. Defense counsel (parents) should treat any on-the-record DFPS concession about relief as binding unless reversed on the spot; when a concession occurs, opposing counsel should demand clarification, make contemporaneous requests to reopen testimony, object, or obtain a written stipulation to preserve appellate rights. Judges must recognize the binding consequence of a DFPS designated representative’s statements about relief and should require explicit clarification before entering termination judgments."
In re Lynn Madison
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas held that an interlocutory TCPA appeal automatically stays all trial-court proceedings until the appellate mandate issues. The stay remains in effect until the mandate is issued, and any trial court rulings prior to that are unauthorized.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law litigators must treat any interlocutory TCPA appeal as a complete bar to trial-court proceedings until the mandate issues. Monitoring the appellate docket is crucial to determine when trial courts may proceed."
City of Houston v. Harris
Supreme Court of Texas
The Supreme Court of Texas denied review of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ holding, allowing superseded admissions to be used as summary-judgment evidence, resulting in a circuit split regarding their evidentiary use.
Litigation Takeaway
"Superseded admissions in family-law cases can be treated as evidentiary material, influencing summary judgment strategies. Practitioners should carefully manage admissions and consider their potential evidentiary role even after amendments."