Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
723 opinions found
In the Interest of D.A.V. and N.B.V., Children
COA04
The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed a SAPCR modification order naming the father sole managing conservator and the mother possessory conservator because the mother’s pro se appeal was fatally defective. After striking her original brief and allowing rebriefing, the court held the amended brief still failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 because it lacked record citations, legal authority, and developed analysis. The court also emphasized that the appellate record did not include the reporter’s record from the November 20, 2025 modification hearing that produced the order under review, making meaningful review impossible. Applying the rule that even pro se litigants must comply with appellate procedure, the court held the mother waived her complaints and affirmed the modification order.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law appeals, the merits do not matter if the appellant cannot present a compliant brief and the reporter’s record from the actual hearing that produced the challenged order. Preservation, Rule 38.1 compliance, and record control are often outcome-determinative—especially in custody modification cases reviewed for abuse of discretion."
In the Matter of the Name Change of A.J.G., a Child
COA08
In *In the Matter of the Name Change of A.J.G., a Child*, the El Paso Court of Appeals reversed a trial court order requiring a mother to pay $400 in reduced court costs after she filed a Rule 145 statement showing she could not afford fees in a minor name-change case. The appellate court held that her sworn indigency statement and supporting benefit, income, asset, and expense information were uncontroverted, and that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on an off-record interview process and attached documents rather than admissible evidence presented in a proper evidentiary hearing. Because the existing record showed inability to pay and no valid evidentiary basis for reduced costs, the court directed that the case proceed without payment of court costs or fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a family-law client files a compliant Rule 145 indigency statement, the court cannot impose filing fees or even reduced costs based on informal interviews, assumptions, or off-record documents. Make sure any challenge to indigency is handled through a formal, on-the-record evidentiary hearing with admissible proof; otherwise, the indigency showing should stand."
In the Interest of L.W. & M.W., Children
COA12
The Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed a modification order removing the mother from managing conservatorship and appointing the children’s maternal grandparents as joint managing conservators. The court held the evidence was sufficient to show a material and substantial change and that modification was in the children’s best interest where the mother’s home had become an unsafe, neglectful environment involving recurring parties, alcohol and drug use, sexual activity, criminal conduct, firearms incidents, and unstable overnight guests. Applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review, and implying findings in support of the judgment because no findings of fact were requested, the court concluded the evidence also rebutted the parental presumption by supporting a finding that the mother’s continued appointment would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional development. The court further upheld unusually severe restrictions on the mother’s possession and communication because the trial court expressly found those limits were necessary to protect the children.
Litigation Takeaway
"In nonparent modification cases, grandparents can overcome the parental presumption with a strong, fact-specific record showing a persistent pattern of neglectful or dangerous home conditions—not just that they offer a better home. For parents, repeated evidence of drugs, alcohol, criminal activity, unsafe guests, and instability around the children is extremely hard to overcome on appeal, especially without requested findings of fact. Build or attack the case at trial, because abuse-of-discretion review gives trial courts broad latitude to impose even very restrictive access orders when tied to child safety."
Brooks v. Wycough
COA12
In Brooks v. Wycough, a rural property dispute returned to the Tyler Court of Appeals after the trial court struck Brooks’s affidavit as a sham and granted summary judgment against his remaining equitable claims. The appellate court held that the sham-affidavit doctrine applies only when a later affidavit clearly contradicts prior sworn testimony on a material point without adequate explanation. Because Wycough relied on alleged inconsistencies between Brooks’s affidavit and his pleadings—and especially superseded pleadings—the doctrine did not apply. The court emphasized that superseded pleadings are displaced by amended pleadings and that pleadings generally are not competent summary-judgment evidence. It therefore held the trial court erred in disregarding the affidavit as a sham on that basis and rejected expanding the doctrine beyond its evidentiary foundation.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not try to strike an affidavit as a sham by comparing it to earlier pleadings. In Texas summary-judgment practice, you need a contradiction with prior sworn testimony, not just inconsistent advocacy in petitions. For family lawyers, this is especially useful in property and reimbursement disputes where theories evolve through amended pleadings."
Gomez v. Richard
COA06
In Gomez v. Richard, the Texarkana Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could render summary judgment after a defendant died but before any estate representative or heir was substituted into the case. After a suggestion of death was filed, the trial court still granted no-evidence summary judgment for the deceased driver and his employer. The appellate court held that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 152, once a party dies, the suit cannot proceed against that person unless a proper substitute—such as an executor, administrator, or heir—is brought in through scire facias or an equivalent substitution procedure. Because no substitute was joined for Richard, he became a legal non-entity for purposes of the litigation, and the judgment as to him was void. The court vacated that portion of the judgment and dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As to the surviving employer, however, the court held the no-evidence motion was sufficiently specific and that the plaintiffs failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence, so the summary judgment for the employer was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a party dies before judgment, stop and fix the parties before the court does anything else. In Texas, failing to substitute a proper representative under Rule 152 can make a later order void, not merely erroneous. In family cases, that gives lawyers a powerful basis to challenge or prevent rulings entered after a spouse, conservator, or other key litigant dies."
Shepard v. Shepard
COA05
In this divorce appeal, the wife, acting without a lawyer, challenged numerous rulings including recusal decisions, due-process concerns, evidentiary limits, ADA accommodation issues, temporary orders, and the trial court’s confirmation of the marital residence as the husband’s separate property. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach those merits because, even after being notified of defects and given a chance to amend, her brief still failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Applying the rule that pro se litigants must follow the same appellate briefing standards as attorneys, the court held that the amended brief lacked clear argument, meaningful record citations, and supporting legal authority. Because nothing was properly presented for appellate review, the court dismissed the appeal under Rule 42.3(c).
Litigation Takeaway
"A family-law appeal can be lost before the court ever considers the merits if the brief does not clearly connect preserved complaints to the record, legal authority, and the applicable standard of review. Even serious complaints about recusal, temporary orders, property characterization, or trial fairness will not be reviewed if the appellant does not comply with Rule 38.1—and pro se parties get no special exemption."
In re Ja’Dawn Lee-Ann Harrison
COA14
In In re Ja’Dawn Lee-Ann Harrison, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a parent could not directly appeal the trial court’s dismissal of a contempt-based motion to enforce a possession order. Because no confinement was imposed, the court treated the attempted appeal as a mandamus proceeding. On the merits, the court found no clear abuse of discretion because the movant failed to identify specific dates or instances showing violations of the possession order, and the order had expired once the child reached adulthood and graduated from high school. The court therefore denied mandamus relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Contempt-based enforcement of possession orders requires precision: plead and prove specific violations of an order that is still in effect. If the trial court denies contempt relief and no one is jailed, the remedy is mandamus—not a direct appeal."
In the Interest of B.G.T. aka E.T., a Child
COA06
The Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding. The case began when both Mother and newborn tested positive for amphetamine, and the record later showed ongoing methamphetamine use, repeated positive and refused drug tests, untreated mental-health issues, incarceration, failure to complete court-ordered services, and an unsafe proposed home with a known drug user. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard and the Holley best-interest factors, the court emphasized that unchallenged predicate findings and overlapping endangerment evidence strongly supported best interest, especially when contrasted with the child’s stable and successful placement with relatives. The court held that a reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"Best-interest cases are won with comparative, current evidence: ongoing drug use, untreated mental illness, service-plan noncompliance, incarceration, and unsafe housing can outweigh a biological parent’s rights when the child is thriving in a stable placement. On appeal, leaving predicate grounds unchallenged can sharply narrow the fight and make a best-interest-only challenge much harder to win."
In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. d/b/a Chase Bank
COA13
In this original proceeding, the court held that a trial court overreached when it sanctioned and held Chase Bank in contempt for alleged failure to produce subpoenaed records, release trust assets, and honor a successor trustee appointment order, even though Chase was a nonparty and had not been properly brought within the court’s personal jurisdiction for that relief. The appellate court focused on procedural due process rather than the underlying trust dispute, explaining that a subpoena, appointment order, or generalized motion in the main case does not automatically authorize contempt-style remedies or Rule 215 sanctions against a nonparty financial institution. Because the necessary procedural and jurisdictional predicates were not established on the record, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief in part and vacated the challenged contempt and sanctions relief to that extent.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want enforceable relief against a bank or other nonparty in a family-law case, build the procedural runway first. You cannot turn a subpoena dispute or third-party compliance problem into contempt or major sanctions unless service, jurisdiction, notice, and the specific rule-based remedy are all properly established."
Armando Jesus Pedraza v. The State of Texas
COA01
In *Armando Jesus Pedraza v. The State of Texas*, the First Court of Appeals affirmed a 30-year punishment judgment after Pedraza argued his lawyer was ineffective during punishment. He claimed counsel should have objected to hearsay testimony about an online article describing prior violent conduct and wrongly advised him that he could testify while still invoking the Fifth Amendment about pending charges. The court applied *Strickland* and held the record was too undeveloped to show deficient performance or prejudice. Because counsel had no opportunity to explain the reasons for not objecting or for calling Pedraza to testify, the court would not speculate on a silent record, especially given the already extensive punishment evidence of prior violence, convictions, bond violations, and pending charges. The court therefore affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a case overlaps with criminal exposure, lawyers must prepare clients carefully before they testify because taking the stand may waive any ability to refuse related cross-examination. The case also shows that appellate complaints about bad evidence or bad strategy usually fail without a well-developed record explaining counsel’s choices, so trial lawyers should preserve objections, seek limiting rulings when appropriate, and build a record if strategy may later be challenged."