Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Hart v. San Jacinto River Authority
COA14
After a case was dismissed for want of prosecution (DWOP), the plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate that was not verified by an affidavit as required by procedural rules. This unverified motion failed to extend the standard 30-day deadline to file an appeal. When the plaintiffs later attempted to file a 'restricted appeal'—a process usually available for six months—the appellate court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30, filing any timely post-judgment motion (even a defective or 'improper' one) automatically disqualifies a party from seeking a restricted appeal. The court held that the unverified motion was still a 'motion' for purposes of the rule, creating a procedural trap that left the plaintiffs with no way to challenge the dismissal.
Litigation Takeaway
"An unverified motion to reinstate is a 'deadly' procedural error: it is ineffective at extending the 30-day window for a standard appeal, yet it simultaneously bars the filing of a restricted appeal. To protect your rights, always ensure a motion to reinstate is verified by personal knowledge and, if the 30-day deadline is approaching without a signed order of reinstatement, file a notice of appeal immediately to preserve the case."
Obaro v. North Woodland Hills Village Cmty. Ass’n
COA01
A homeowner sought to vacate a default judgment, arguing that service of process on his designated agent—appointed via a recorded Statutory Durable Power of Attorney (SDPOA)—was invalid because the agent affirmatively rejected the citation. The court analyzed Texas Estates Code §§ 751.031(a) and 752.110(5), which grant agents with authority over 'claims and litigation' the specific power to accept service of process. The court held that this statutory authority is a vested legal power that third parties and the courts are entitled to rely upon; consequently, an agent cannot unilaterally waive or reject service to defeat personal jurisdiction over the principal. The default judgment was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"When dealing with elusive or incapacitated parties, check county records for a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney. If the document grants authority over 'claims and litigation,' you can effectuate valid service on the agent even if they attempt to refuse the papers, provided you allege the agency in your pleadings and attach a copy of the SDPOA."
Sherman v. Pertee
COA05
In Sherman v. Pertee, a trial court judge dismissed a breach of contract appeal on their own motion (sua sponte), reasoning that the original claim was filed after the statute of limitations had expired and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. The Fifth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the appeal was filed on time and whether a statute of limitations defense is truly jurisdictional. The Court found that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the filing deadline was extended because December 26th is a recognized state holiday. Furthermore, the Court held that a statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant; it does not deprive a court of the power to hear a case. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial court erred by treating a waived limitations defense as a jurisdictional bar.
Litigation Takeaway
"A statute of limitations is a 'shield' that must be affirmatively pleaded in your answer, not a 'sword' that a judge can use to dismiss a case for you. In family law enforcement or property division disputes, failing to plead limitations means you waive that defense. Additionally, remember that in Texas state courts, December 26th is a legal holiday that can provide a critical 48-hour extension for year-end filing deadlines."
In re K.N., M.N., and M.N., Children
COA02
The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father following a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and unlivable home conditions. On appeal, the parents challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court's endangerment findings, and the mother argued her due process rights were violated when the trial proceeded in the absence of a witness. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, analyzing the parents' pattern of conduct under Texas Family Code \u00a7 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court held that persistent domestic violence and chronic substance abuse constitute an endangering environment, and further ruled that the mother failed to preserve her due process claim because she did not file a sworn motion for continuance as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251.
Litigation Takeaway
"Endangerment findings are often based on a cumulative pattern of behavior, such as the intersection of domestic violence and substance abuse, rather than a single incident. Furthermore, trial counsel must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for missing witnesses; a general due process objection will not preserve error on appeal without a written, sworn motion for continuance and a formal offer of proof regarding the witness's expected testimony."
Moore v. Stanley Spurling & Hamilton, Inc.
COA14
Moore sued an engineering firm five days before the statute of limitations expired but failed to include a certificate of merit or a 'lack-of-time' allegation in her initial petition. She filed both the certificate and the required allegation 29 days later. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002(c) requires the 'lack-of-time' allegation to be made contemporaneously with the initial filing. The trial court dismissed the case, but the 14th Court of Appeals reversed. The court analyzed the statute's silence on the specific deadline for the allegation and held that, in the 14th District, a plaintiff may provide the 'lack-of-time' justification within the 30-day supplemental window rather than the first petition, provided the suit was filed within 10 days of the limitations deadline.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Houston's 14th District, there is a procedural 'safety valve' for claims against professionals: if you file suit within 10 days of a limitations deadline, you can fix a missing 'lack-of-time' allegation and file your certificate of merit within 30 days of the initial filing. However, beware of venue, as the Dallas and Beaumont courts currently hold that omitting these allegations from the initial petition is a fatal error."
Valladares v. State
COA14
Roger Valladares appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to call his sister as a mitigation witness and failed to object to the admission of therapy records. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals applied the Strickland standard, finding that the attorney’s decision not to call the sister was a valid trial strategy to avoid "opening the door" to highly prejudicial evidence of prior bad acts. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the motion for new trial because the defendant failed to show that the omitted testimony would have likely changed the outcome and because the therapy records were admissible to rebut a defense theory of recent fabrication.
Litigation Takeaway
"Think twice before calling a "good character" witness in an abuse or family violence case; generalized testimony about a client's good behavior often provides a procedural gateway for the opposing side to introduce specific, devastating instances of prior misconduct that would otherwise be inadmissible."
Gerardo Solis III v. State
COA13
In *Solis v. State*, a defendant's counsel raised a suggestion of incompetency during a revocation hearing, supported by testimony of the defendant's mental regression and inability to assist in his defense. The trial court dismissed these concerns after a brief colloquy where the defendant answered basic questions clearly, concluding he was competent. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a trial court abuses its discretion when it weighs evidence of competency against evidence of incompetency during an informal inquiry. The court clarified that if there is 'some evidence' (more than a scintilla) from any source suggesting incompetency, the trial court must stay the proceedings and appoint an expert rather than relying on its own courtroom observations.
Litigation Takeaway
"A judge’s 'vibes check' or a party's polite courtroom demeanor cannot override evidence of mental incapacity; if there is even a scintilla of evidence that a party cannot rationally assist their counsel, the court is legally required to halt proceedings and appoint a competency expert."
David Lynd v. Bailey Brewer
COA05
In David Lynd v. Bailey Brewer, the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether a party could challenge a trial court's venue transfer order via an interlocutory appeal. Appellant David Lynd sought to reverse an order transferring his case to Tarrant County, arguing the court could exercise jurisdiction through a standard appeal, a permissive appeal, or by treating his brief as a mandamus petition. The court analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014 and Rule of Civil Procedure 87(6), determining that venue rulings are strictly excluded from interlocutory review. Furthermore, the court found Lynd failed to obtain the necessary trial court certification for a permissive appeal and failed to meet the technical requirements for a mandamus petition under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. Consequently, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"A standard notice of appeal is a 'procedural dead end' for venue disputes; practitioners must instead file a technically perfect Petition for Writ of Mandamus or secure a specific certification for a permissive appeal to challenge a transfer order before final judgment."
David and Rebecca Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association
COA01
In *Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association*, homeowners sued their insurance provider following a claim denial. The insurer filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and the homeowners responded with affidavits from two experts. However, the homeowners had previously filed an amended expert designation that omitted these specific experts. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, determining that an amended designation supersedes previous lists; by omitting the experts, the homeowners effectively de-designated them. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the expert affidavits and affirming a take-nothing summary judgment, as the remaining evidence was unauthenticated and insufficient to create a fact issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"Always cross-reference your summary judgment evidence with your most recent Rule 194.2 expert designations; amending your witness list to "clean up" for trial can accidentally de-designate the experts you need to survive a no-evidence motion, resulting in the exclusion of their testimony."
MacIvor v. Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, Inc.
COA06
In a dispute over property assessments, a homeowners association sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 resolution that purportedly amended the subdivision's covenants. The property owner challenged the existence of the agreement, arguing the amendment was never validly adopted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration, holding that the party moving for arbitration bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the existence of a valid agreement under traditional contract principles. Because the association failed to provide evidence that the amendment was legally executed, the "presumption" favoring arbitration was never triggered, and the resulting arbitration award was declared void.
Litigation Takeaway
"The "strong policy favoring arbitration" does not excuse a party from proving that a contract actually exists. If a spouse or business partner attempts to enforce an arbitration clause in a modified agreement, trust amendment, or draft settlement, you can block the referral to arbitration by challenging the legal formation of that document. The court must confirm the agreement's existence before the arbitrator can take over."