Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
Glen Edward Williams v. Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division and Alycia Monet Kelley
COA03
In Williams, the Austin Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the father's bill of review challenging prior child-support-related orders because the appeal was jurisdictionally premature. Williams filed his bill of review in the same cause number as the underlying case, where a separate petition to terminate child-support withholding was still pending. Applying Lehmann and Bella Palma, the court analyzed finality by looking at the entire cause, not just the bill-of-review ruling, and held the order was not final because it neither disposed of the remaining withholding claim nor contained a clear and unequivocal statement that it disposed of all claims and all parties. Because no statute authorized an interlocutory appeal from that nonfinal order, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not assume an order denying a bill of review is immediately appealable in a family-law case. Before filing a notice of appeal, audit the entire cause number for any live pleadings and make sure the order either resolves every remaining claim or includes unmistakable finality language; otherwise, the appeal may be dismissed as premature."
In the Interest of H.H., K.H., Z.H. & Z.H.
COA12
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The record showed severe medical neglect of a medically fragile child, broader neglect of the other children’s developmental, dental, and daily needs, and Mother’s failure to translate services into improved parenting ability. Applying the Holley factors, the court emphasized Mother’s demonstrated inability to meet the children’s present and future needs, the ongoing danger posed by her lack of caregiving capacity, the children’s dramatic improvement in stable foster placements, and the availability of adoptive homes. The court held that this evidence allowed the factfinder to form a firm conviction that termination was in the children’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In best-interest litigation, courts care far more about proven caregiving capacity, follow-through, stability, and measurable child outcomes than about a parent’s stated love or partial service-plan compliance. If a case involves medical, developmental, or educational neglect, build the record around concrete deficits, future risk, and the child’s progress in a stable placement."
Juan Fidel Lopez Antonio v. PNC Bank National Association
COA12
On restricted appeal from a default judgment, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that a private process server’s return was not defective under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107(e) merely because the unsworn declaration cited 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and stated it was made under penalty of perjury under federal law. The court analyzed Rule 107(e)’s requirement that the return be verified or signed under penalty of perjury in substantially the prescribed form, and concluded strict compliance does not require a talismanic reference to Texas law. Because the return included the server’s identifying information, execution details, signature, and a perjury-backed attestation, there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the default judgment was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you are defending a default judgment, a return of service is not automatically void just because the private server used federal unsworn-declaration language instead of expressly invoking Texas law. The key is whether the return still contains Rule 107’s essential service details and a signed attestation under penalty of perjury; attacks should focus on real omissions, not stylistic wording differences."
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."
Soma v. Winborne
COA12
In Soma v. Winborne, a husband sought restitution after he and his wife spent more than $200,000 building a home on the wife’s parents’ land, claiming they had been promised a parcel of the property. After a bench trial, the court found there was no contract, no oral promise to gift land, and no agreement to convey land. Applying Texas unjust-enrichment law, the appellate court held that a landowner’s receipt of a benefit is not enough; the plaintiff must prove the benefit was obtained by fraud, duress, or undue advantage. Because the expenditures were voluntary improvements to land the couple knew they did not own, and the factfinder rejected the alleged promise of future title, the court affirmed the take-nothing judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"If marital funds are used to improve land titled in parents, in-laws, or other third parties, do not rely on unjust enrichment as a fallback. In Texas, voluntary improvements to another’s land are not recoverable absent proof of wrongful conduct such as fraud, duress, or undue advantage, so family-law counsel should document ownership expectations and plead specific legal theories early."
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."
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."
Allen v. State
COA12
In *Allen v. State*, the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to admit a police detective’s expert testimony on gang membership, gang culture, and gang dynamics under Texas Rule of Evidence 702. The dispute was whether the detective had a sufficient specialized foundation to identify the defendant and others as members of the Westside Rollin’ 60s and explain the gang’s local structure and behavior. The court focused on the witness’s actual knowledge and experience—eighteen years with the department, years as a detective, a gang-focused assignment, repeated gang investigations, training, intelligence gathering, familiarity with the specific local gang, and prior gang-related testimony—rather than formal academic credentials. It held that this case-specific and experience-based foundation was enough to qualify him as an expert. The court also held that unsupported items in the bill of costs had to be removed, so it modified the judgment and affirmed as modified.
Litigation Takeaway
"Rule 702 fights are won or lost on fit and foundation, not titles. If you offer a specialized witness in a family case, build a concrete record showing training, repeated experience, local or issue-specific knowledge, methodology, and how the witness’s expertise connects to the exact dispute. If you challenge the witness, attack gaps between generalized experience and the precise opinion offered, and insist that any monetary assessment in the final order have a clear legal and evidentiary basis."
In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T., Children
COA14
In this post-divorce SAPCR modification case, the father tried to undo an in-court Rule 11 settlement after the trial court accepted the agreement and stated the orders were effective that day. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals focused on the key procedural question: whether consent still existed at rendition. Applying Texas Rule 11 principles and S&A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, the court held that consent may be withdrawn only before rendition, not after. Because the settlement terms were recited in open court, father personally agreed to them, and the trial court rendered judgment before father attempted to back away, his later refusal to sign and later objections did not prevent entry of a conforming written order. The appellate court also rejected father's complaint that the written order improperly changed the children's primary residence, concluding the record supported the trial court's view that the rendered agreement imposed a Clear Creek ISD-based framework rather than designating father's address as the primary residence.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you settle a family-law case on the record, the moment that matters is rendition, not the later signature. Once the court accepts the Rule 11 agreement and renders it effective, buyer's remorse usually cannot undo the deal; from then on, the real fight is whether the written order truly conforms to what was recited in court."
Suarez v. State
COA13
In Suarez v. State, the defendant challenged whether a prior deferred-adjudication disposition for continuous violence against the family could satisfy the prior-conviction element needed to elevate a new family-violence assault to a felony under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(A). The court applied the legal-sufficiency standard and focused on the statute’s text, especially § 22.01(f)(1), which expressly defines “previously convicted” to include a guilty or nolo contendere plea that resulted in deferred adjudication, whether or not sentence was ever later imposed. Because the State introduced certified records showing Suarez’s guilty plea and deferred adjudication for a qualifying family-violence offense, the court held the evidence was legally sufficient and that no later adjudication of guilt was required during guilt-innocence. The court also modified the judgment to reflect the jury’s repeat-offender enhancement finding that had been omitted from the written judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not make blanket arguments that deferred adjudication is “not a conviction.” In Texas family-law and family-violence litigation, the controlling statute may give a deferred-adjudication plea real legal effect. Read the exact statutory definition, and use certified plea papers and orders—not summaries—to prove or challenge the prior proceeding."