Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In re International Leadership of Texas, Inc. and International Leadership of Texas – Global
COA14
In this mandamus proceeding, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff’s Rule 162 nonsuit was mandatory and immediately effective when filed before the plaintiff rested and more than three days before a Rule 91a hearing. The defendants’ Rule 91a motion to dismiss and plea to the jurisdiction were defensive pleadings, not claims for affirmative relief, so they did not prevent dismissal. The court also rejected the trial court’s outright denial of the nonsuit based on the suit being brought for a minor through a next friend, explaining that if an apparent conflict existed between the minor and the next friend, the proper step under Rule 173 was to appoint a guardian ad litem before acting on the nonsuit. Because the record showed no conflict finding, the trial court abused its discretion, and mandamus issued directing dismissal absent a conflict determination and ad litem appointment.
Litigation Takeaway
"A timely nonsuit is usually automatic: trial courts cannot keep a case alive just because a dispositive motion is pending or because a minor is involved. To defeat or delay a nonsuit, the opposing party must show a live claim for affirmative relief, or the court must identify an actual apparent conflict between the minor and the next friend and follow Rule 173 by appointing a guardian ad litem."
In the Interest of S.V., a Minor Child
COA05
In In re S.V., the Dallas Court of Appeals decided whether a mother’s child-support enforcement motion was timely under Texas Family Code § 157.005 when the two-year filing deadline fell on a Saturday, followed by Sunday and Memorial Day, and the motion was filed the next business day. The court held Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 4 applies to extend the deadline to the next non-holiday business day, so the May 31, 2022 filing was timely even though the support obligation terminated on May 28, 2020. Because the motion was timely, the trial court retained authority to confirm arrearages, reduce them and accrued interest to judgment, and award statutory attorney’s fees. The court also rejected the father’s service, amended-pleading, continuance, and other procedural complaints, finding no reversible error.
Litigation Takeaway
"When calculating the two-year deadline to confirm child-support arrearages under Family Code § 157.005, do not stop at the calendar anniversary date—apply Rule 4. If the last day falls on a weekend or legal holiday, filing on the next business day is timely. Practically, lawyers should carefully identify the true termination date of support, preserve proof of filing, and focus defense efforts on actual accounting or notice problems rather than weak weekend-deadline arguments."
Moritz v. Moritz
COA03
In Moritz v. Moritz, the Austin Court of Appeals affirmed a divorce decree denying the wife’s request for spousal maintenance. The court explained that Texas Family Code section 8.051 requires more than proof of a long-term marriage or general financial hardship: the spouse seeking maintenance must prove an inability to meet minimum reasonable needs and also establish a specific statutory ground for eligibility. Because the wife did not clearly identify the subsection she relied on, did not develop evidence showing inability to meet her minimum reasonable needs, and did not address the diligence requirement applicable to ten-year-marriage claims under section 8.051(2)(B), she failed to show entitlement to maintenance as a matter of law. The court also affirmed the property division, denial of reimbursement, and rejection of evidentiary complaints due to lack of findings, lack of preservation, and inadequate briefing.
Litigation Takeaway
"Spousal maintenance in Texas is a strictly statutory remedy, not a general fairness argument. Lawyers must plead the exact Family Code basis, prove minimum reasonable needs with concrete evidence, and, in ten-year-marriage cases, present diligence evidence to overcome the presumption against maintenance. More broadly, Moritz shows that weak records, missing findings, waived objections, and thin appellate briefing can sink otherwise sympathetic claims."
Wilma Reynolds and Carl Gordon v. Quantlab Financial, LLC; Quantlab Incentive Partners I, LLC; Quantlab Trading Partners US, LP; and David Reynolds
COA14
After years of post-divorce litigation, Wilma Reynolds filed yet another suit alleging David Reynolds and the Quantlab entities concealed bonus and compensation information during the divorce, causing the marital estate to be undervalued. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals applied Texas’s transactional res judicata doctrine and held the new fraud, conspiracy, misrepresentation, conversion, and undivided-property claims all arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior divorce-related cases. The court rejected Wilma’s argument that the facts had changed because in camera documents supposedly had not been reviewed for damages or property-division relevance, concluding that this was only a repackaging of previously rejected allegations. The court affirmed summary judgment, denial of further discovery and access to the in camera materials, and sanctions.
Litigation Takeaway
"You cannot relitigate an old divorce-property dispute by changing the label on the claim. If the alleged hidden-asset or compensation-concealment theory was or could have been litigated in the divorce or prior post-decree proceedings, res judicata will likely bar later fraud, tort, or undivided-property suits—and repetitive refilings may draw sanctions."
Monte Albert v. Madeena V. Albert
COA03
In this divorce appeal, the husband challenged the decree’s debt allocation, attorney’s fee award, and related rulings with arguments focused largely on alleged Army misconduct and the wife’s supposed incompetence. The Third Court of Appeals held that his complaints were waived because his briefs lacked record citations, developed legal analysis, and supporting authority, even after he was given a chance to rebrief. The court also refused to consider exhibits attached to the appellate brief that were not part of the trial record and held that any competency-related complaint was neither preserved nor adequately briefed. The divorce decree was therefore left undisturbed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Appellate complaints in family-law cases live or die on briefing. If a party does not tie each issue to the actual appellate record, preserved trial-court error, and supporting authority, the court of appeals can treat the issue as waived—even after giving a chance to rebrief."
Havens v. State
COA13
In Havens v. State, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for assault-family violence by impeding breath or circulation. The defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the complainant had inconsistencies in her story, memory gaps, a prior methamphetamine history, and there was conflicting testimony about intoxication and how her injuries occurred. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court held those points raised credibility and weight issues for the jury, not legal-insufficiency grounds on appeal. Because the complainant testified Havens choked her until she lost consciousness and that testimony was corroborated by medical records, provider testimony, photographs, and prompt outcry evidence, a rational jury could find the elements of Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-violence cases, strangulation allegations supported by medical records, photos, and prompt outcry can carry the day even when the complaining witness has credibility vulnerabilities, inconsistent recall, or substance-use history. For family-law litigators, impeachment alone is often not enough; the real battle is whether there is corroboration of the core assault narrative and whether the opposing side can offer a coherent alternative explanation for the injuries."
In the Interest of D.W., J.W., and I.W., Children
COA10
The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights after holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court rejected the mother’s argument that a 2022 agreed SAPCR order barred consideration of older evidence, explaining that the Department had abandoned termination in that earlier proceeding, so there was no prior merits denial. On the merits, the court analyzed the children’s environment and the mother’s conduct as a continuing pattern of endangerment: admitted drug use in the home, domestic violence, sexual-abuse concerns, criminality, instability, leaving the children with the father despite known risks, continued association with him despite no-contact concerns, and later unsafe supervision and housing instability. The court held this evidence also supported the best-interest finding and affirmed termination as to both parents.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent does not have to be the direct abuser to face severe consequences. In Texas family cases, knowingly exposing children to a dangerous partner or unsafe home conditions can support endangerment findings, possession restrictions, conservatorship changes, and in CPS cases termination—especially when the risky relationship or instability continues after warnings, removal, or court orders."
United Waterworks, LLC and Gary Tompkins v. Pranesh Jayaprakash
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment that was based entirely on deemed admissions after the defendants failed to answer requests for admissions because their lawyer’s email-routing system mistakenly sent the filings into an inactive folder. Applying Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198.3 and the Texas Supreme Court’s decisions in Marino, Wheeler, and Goudeau, the court held the verified explanation showed good cause because the failure resulted from accident or mistake rather than conscious indifference, and the plaintiff showed no undue prejudice because the case was still early in the schedule with ample time before discovery cutoff and trial. Because the deemed admissions conclusively established liability and damages and were used as a case-ending trapdoor instead of a merits determination, the trial court should have withdrawn them, so the final judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"Deemed admissions are useful to narrow issues, but they are risky when used to win an entire case by default. If missed admissions resulted from a documented clerical or e-service mistake and withdrawal will not meaningfully prejudice the other side, Rule 198.3 should provide relief—especially when the admissions decide the core merits. Family lawyers should build independent proof for summary judgment and use RFAs mainly for authentication and truly undisputed facts."
Nadia Muraira v. Wesley William Hall
COA03
In Muraira v. Hall, the Third Court of Appeals held that Texas Family Code § 162.012 barred a biological father’s bill of review filed more than six months after a final adoption order. Hall argued the adoption should be undone because he was not served, was not joined despite being the biological father, and the adoptive mother and biological mother allegedly procured the judgment by fraud. The court rejected those theories, explaining that § 162.012 creates an unusually strict finality rule for adoption decrees: after six months, both direct and collateral attacks are barred unless the challenge is based on the rendering court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because complaints about lack of service, nonjoinder, and fraud do not amount to subject-matter-jurisdiction defects, Hall’s attack could not proceed. The court also noted that a bill of review must be filed in the court that rendered the original judgment, not a different district court. It reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the bill of review.
Litigation Takeaway
"Adoption orders get extraordinary finality in Texas. If more than six months have passed, lawyers cannot revive an attack by labeling service defects, omitted-parent claims, or fraud as “jurisdictional”; only a true subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge survives. Practitioners should do exhaustive notice, paternity, and joinder work before the adoption is signed, and any bill of review must be filed in the rendering court."
In the Interest of S.G.H. and W.C.H., Children
COA13
In In re S.G.H. and W.C.H., the trial court dismissed a modification case for want of prosecution, and after plenary power expired Father filed a separate bill of review. Although the trial court granted the bill of review and vacated the dismissal, it later signed a new modification order in the original cause number rather than retrying the merits in the bill-of-review proceeding. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that granting a bill of review does not restore plenary power in the original case; instead, any retrial must occur in the separate bill-of-review action. Because the 2024 modification order was signed in the original cause years after dismissal, it was void, so the court vacated the order and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bill of review can wipe out an old judgment, but it does not reopen the original case for a new merits ruling. In family cases, lawyers must move all post-bill-of-review litigation into the bill-of-review cause number; if the court signs a modification or other merits order in the old dismissed case after plenary power expired, that order may be void and the entire effort wasted."