Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Tina Thuy Truong and Tina 1960 Nails Salon, Inc. v. Hoa Hiep Hoang
COA01
In Truong v. Hoang, the spouses disputed how to treat value generated during marriage by the wife’s separate-property nail salon corporation. The trial court awarded the husband $384,307 as his share of a supposed community interest in salon income and entered judgment against both the wife and the corporation. The court of appeals held that community labor devoted to a spouse’s separate-property business does not create a direct ownership interest in the business or its income; instead, the proper theory is an equitable reimbursement claim under Texas Family Code section 3.402 for inadequate compensation to the community. Because reimbursement is resolved through reconstitution and just-and-right division between the spouses, and no independent basis for corporate liability was established, the judgment against the separate-property corporation was improper. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the property division to be reconsidered under the proper reimbursement framework.
Litigation Takeaway
"If community labor enhanced one spouse’s separate business during marriage, plead and prove reimbursement—not ownership of the business profits. And if you want a judgment against the business entity itself, you need an independent theory like alter ego, fraud, or another entity-specific basis for liability."
In Re Guardianship of S.M.D.
COA05
In this Texas guardianship case, the proposed ward’s cousin sought temporary and permanent guardianship and alleged that the ward’s agent under a power of attorney had used that authority for self-dealing, including creating a trust, naming himself trustee, and transferring assets. After the agent opposed guardianship and argued that less restrictive alternatives already existed, the probate court granted a motion under Estates Code § 1055.001, found his interests adverse to the proposed ward, and dismissed his contest for lack of standing. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of that standing ruling. Instead, applying Estates Code § 1022.001(c) and the probate-finality framework from De Ayala v. Mackie and Crowson, the court held the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of a discrete phase of the proceeding: the permanent guardianship application remained pending and no permanent guardian had been appointed. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A major standing ruling in a guardianship case is not necessarily immediately appealable. If the probate court excludes your client from contesting guardianship under Estates Code § 1055.001 but the permanent guardianship phase is still pending, you likely must preserve error and wait for an appealable final probate order before seeking review."
Bisor v. State
COA05
In Bisor v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a general hearsay objection to an entire TDCJ prison pen packet did not preserve a narrower complaint that specific disciplinary entries contained inadmissible embedded hearsay. The court explained that when a composite exhibit contains both admissible and allegedly inadmissible material, the objecting party must identify the particular pages or statements being challenged so the trial court has a fair opportunity to rule. The court further indicated that, even if preserved, the pen packet was generally admissible as a self-authenticated public record and under the business-records exception, with the defendant’s own statements also admissible as party-opponent admissions. Finally, the court held that any assumed error was harmless because the punishment record already included a prior murder conviction, other misconduct evidence, and a 23-year sentence near the low end of the enhanced range.
Litigation Takeaway
"Blanket objections to mixed records usually are not enough. If only part of a composite exhibit is objectionable, identify the exact page, entry, or statement and state the precise basis—especially for embedded hearsay—so the issue is preserved for appeal. In family-law trials, this lesson applies directly to CPS files, medical records, school records, counseling records, police reports, and other multi-layered exhibits."
In the Estate of Allie Marie Brock Fugler, Deceased
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals reversed a take-nothing summary judgment in an estate dispute arising from an allegedly invalid premarital agreement. The decedent’s child and grandchild sued the executor for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, alleging he wrongly relied on and enforced a forged or invalid premarital agreement and mishandled estate assets. Another party filed a no-evidence motion asserting broadly that the claims depended on the agreement’s validity, but the motion did not identify which specific elements of the pleaded claims lacked evidence. The court held Rule 166a(i) requires a no-evidence motion to target actual claim elements, not just attack the opponent’s overall theory of the case. The court also held the trial court could not grant summary judgment for the executor because he never filed or joined the motion. Even if the motion were construed generously, the plaintiffs produced more than a scintilla of evidence through a handwriting expert affidavit raising a fact issue on the agreement’s authenticity. The court reversed and remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"A no-evidence summary judgment motion must identify the exact elements that allegedly lack evidentiary support; attacking only the other side’s “central theory” is not enough. Also, a trial court cannot grant summary judgment to a party who did not move for it or join the motion."
Gabriel Joshua Alonzo v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Gabriel Joshua Alonzo v. State of Texas, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that an ex-boyfriend’s prior access to a woman’s home did not defeat a burglary conviction where she had the greater present right to possession and had revoked consent for him to enter. The court focused on possession at the time of entry, relying on Penal Code section 1.07(a)(35)(A) and Morgan v. State, and found the evidence sufficient because the complainant leased and occupied the home, the relationship had ended, he was not on the lease, did not pay rent, and she testified he was no longer allowed inside. The court also held the evidence supported the assault and theft elements because he grabbed, shook, and shoved her causing pain, then took her phone during a 911 call and kept it for several days. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In breakup and separation cases, past access to a residence—keys, overnight stays, mail, or informal living arrangements—does not necessarily create a continuing right to enter. The winning record is built on present possessory facts: lease or title status, actual occupancy, payment history, clear revocation of consent, changed locks or codes, and contemporaneous objective evidence."
Treadway v. State
COA12
In Treadway v. State, the Tyler Court of Appeals considered whether evidence that the defendant engaged in similar sexual misconduct with another child could be admitted after the defense argued the complainant fabricated her allegations. The court held the evidence was admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was offered for a non-character purpose—to rebut the fabrication defense—rather than to show propensity. The court also held the trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 403 because, in a credibility-driven child-abuse case, the evidence was highly probative and its value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you make fabrication, coaching, mistake, or accident a central theory, you may open the door to otherwise excluded other-acts evidence. In family cases involving child allegations, courts may admit similar prior-act evidence for a non-propensity purpose if it directly rebuts that theory and survives Rule 403 balancing."
Robert Link v. The State of Texas
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed Robert Link’s conviction for repeated violation of a protective order. The key dispute was identity: Link argued the State failed to prove he sent the June 29 and July 11, 2023 texts and calls because the communications came from spoofed or changing phone numbers and no carrier records directly tied those numbers to him. Applying Jackson v. Virginia and Texas circumstantial-evidence precedent, the court held the jury could rely on the cumulative force of the evidence, including the content of the messages, references to the parties’ DNA and protective-order disputes, Link’s prior pattern of unwanted contact, expert testimony explaining spoofing, and similar-transaction testimony from another former partner. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, that evidence allowed a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Link was the sender and that he repeatedly violated the protective order under Penal Code sections 25.072 and 25.07.
Litigation Takeaway
"Direct phone-company proof is helpful but not always necessary in protective-order enforcement cases. If anonymized texts, calls, or app messages contain details uniquely tied to the respondent and fit an established pattern of harassment, courts may find circumstantial evidence sufficient. For family-law litigators, the lesson is to build a narrative with preserved messages, context, timelines, corroborating witnesses, and pattern evidence rather than relying solely on digital subscriber records."
Washington v. State
COA06
In Washington v. State, the Texarkana Court of Appeals considered whether a trial court had to continue trial after the State disclosed a recorded witness interview only days before trial in an assumed violation of Article 39.14. The trial court excluded the late-produced recording but allowed the previously identified witness to testify live. On appeal, the court focused on remedy and prejudice, holding that late disclosure alone does not require a continuance. Because the witness had long been known to the defense and the defendant did not explain with considerable specificity what additional investigation, impeachment, or trial preparation a continuance would have allowed, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the continuance. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that exclusion of the recording was an adequate remedy and that no concrete prejudice from proceeding to trial was shown.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want a continuance based on late-produced evidence, do more than complain about timing. Make a specific record of what work still needs to be done, why a lesser remedy like exclusion is not enough, and exactly how going to trial now will cause concrete prejudice. In family law cases, that lesson applies directly to late-produced recordings, texts, business records, CPS materials, and witness statements."
Harris v. State
COA05
In Harris v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a 911 recording could be admitted through the business-records framework of Texas Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(10) based on a compliant records-custodian affidavit, even though neither the caller nor the dispatcher testified. The defendant challenged the recording on authentication, hearsay, and confrontation grounds. The court rejected the argument that 911 calls must be admitted, if at all, only as public records, and concluded that the affidavit sufficiently established the recording was kept in the regular course of business and that the offered copy was the original or an exact duplicate, making it self-authenticating. The court also held that the trial court properly addressed hearsay concerns by reviewing the audio, redacting objectionable portions, and admitting only the remainder, and that the caller’s statements during an ongoing emergency were non-testimonial under Davis v. Washington. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family lawyers, Harris is a practical roadmap for getting 911 audio into evidence without live testimony from the caller or dispatcher. A properly prepared Rule 902(10) affidavit can solve the authentication problem, but lawyers still must separately analyze the statements within the call for hearsay exceptions and be ready to propose targeted redactions rather than all-or-nothing admission."
The State of Texas for the Protection of M.D.J.
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed a protective order against Nicholas McKay, holding that the appeal was not moot despite the order’s expiration because the family-violence finding carries collateral consequences in later family-law cases. On the merits, the court applied deferential legal- and factual-sufficiency review and concluded that the applicant’s testimony about repeated physical abuse, threats to kill her, a firearm threat, and a threat involving the child—corroborated by injury photographs and audio recordings—was more than sufficient to support findings that family violence occurred and was likely to occur in the future. The respondent’s contrary evidence, including the applicant’s prior assault arrest and ordinary text exchanges, created credibility conflicts for the trial court but did not render the findings unsupported or unjust. The court also rejected other appellate complaints as moot, inadequately briefed, or unpreserved.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas protective-order cases, credible testimony plus basic corroboration like photos and recordings can be enough to sustain a family-violence finding on appeal, even when the respondent offers competing narratives or impeachment evidence. Treat every protective-order hearing as a high-stakes record-building event because the resulting family-violence finding can continue to affect custody, possession, and divorce litigation long after the order expires."