Opinion Library

Syed Ali v. Tailim Song d/b/a Tailim Song Law Firm

COA05

A law firm obtained summary judgment against a former client for unpaid fees by relying on allegedly deemed admissions and supporting affidavits. The Dallas Court of Appeals held that because the client timely served responses to the requests for admission, Rule 198.2(c) did not automatically deem the matters admitted, even if the responses were evasive or objection-based. Instead, the plaintiff had to obtain a Rule 215.4(a) order treating the responses as a failure to answer, and the record showed no express or implied order. The court further held that the affidavits were conclusory because they did not attach or explain the fee agreement, material terms, or calculation of the amount owed. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"Timely but evasive RFA responses are not automatic deemed admissions in Texas—you must move for and obtain a Rule 215.4 order before using them as conclusive proof. And if you seek summary judgment on fees or contract-based claims, do not rely on bare affidavit conclusions; attach the operative documents and prove the underlying facts and calculations element by element."

In the Matter of B.F.P.

COA11

In In the Matter of B.F.P., the Eastland Court of Appeals dismissed a juvenile appeal for want of jurisdiction because Texas Family Code section 56.01 allows an appeal from a disposition-modification order only if it is filed by or on behalf of the child. After the juvenile court modified B.F.P.’s disposition and placed her with her paternal grandfather, two adults filed a pro se notice of appeal alleging notice and due-process defects. But B.F.P.’s attorney informed the court that B.F.P. did not want to appeal and that the adults’ objectives conflicted with hers. Relying on the text of section 56.01 and prior juvenile cases, the court held that a parent or other adult cannot create appellate jurisdiction when the child, through counsel, does not desire an appeal. The adults’ later amended notice purporting to proceed on the child’s behalf was also ineffective, so the appeal was dismissed.

Litigation Takeaway

"Identify who actually owns the right to appeal before filing. When a statute makes appellate rights personal to the child, parents or other relatives cannot invoke appellate jurisdiction in their own names or override the child’s contrary position through counsel, even by framing the complaint as a due-process or voidness challenge."

Evidence

Robert v. State

COA10

In Robert v. State, the Tenth Court of Appeals held that a defendant accused of continuous sexual abuse of a child could not cross-examine the child complainant about an earlier accusation against her grandfather without first proving that earlier accusation was false. The defendant argued the prior allegation supported his theory that the child fabricated abuse claims when she got in trouble over cell-phone use, but the court applied Lopez v. State and concluded that suspicion, timing arguments, delayed reporting, omissions, and a good-faith belief in falsity do not satisfy the threshold requirement of proof of falsity. Because the prior accusation was not shown to be false, it was not probative impeachment evidence, and the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding it. The court also held that the defendant failed to preserve a separate Rule 613(b) complaint because that theory was not presented to the trial court.

Litigation Takeaway

"If you want to use a prior abuse allegation to show bias, fabrication, or motive in a family-law case, you need actual proof that the earlier allegation was false—not just inconsistencies, delay, or suspicion. Preserve every admissibility theory separately and be prepared to build the foundation outside the factfinder’s presence."

Evidence

Rogers v. State

COA14

In Rogers v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed admission of extensive prior abuse evidence in an injury-to-a-child prosecution against a mother. The court held that repeated prior acts against the same children were highly probative of intent, state of mind, credibility, and the nature of the parent-child relationship under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.37 and 38.371, and that Rule 403 did not require exclusion because the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or cumulativeness. The court also held that after the mother blurted out in front of the jury that her daughter was lying, the State could introduce the daughter’s earlier forensic-interview statement as a prior consistent statement to rebut the accusation of fabrication.

Litigation Takeaway

"In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, prior incidents within the same family relationship can be powerful context evidence when tied to endangerment, intent, credibility, or the parent-child dynamic, and generic Rule 403 objections usually will not be enough to keep them out. Lawyers should also be careful when accusing a child or other witness of fabrication, because that attack may open the door to otherwise inadmissible prior consistent statements."

Child Custody

Hoisington v. State

COA11

In Hoisington v. State, the Eastland Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by exposure. The defendant argued the proof failed because there was no DNA evidence, no recovered pornography, and no conclusive forensic findings. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and deferred to the jury’s credibility determinations. The child complainant gave age-appropriate, internally consistent testimony describing exposure, sexual contact, oral contact, and digital penetration that tracked the statutory elements. Her account was reinforced by consistent disclosures to a SANE nurse and forensic interviewer, medical findings consistent with her description, and corroboration of a specific detail about a pink sex toy. The court held that a child complainant’s testimony alone can sustain the findings if believed, and the absence of DNA or other definitive forensic proof did not render the evidence insufficient.

Litigation Takeaway

"In abuse-driven family cases, do not let the case rise or fall on DNA or conclusive physical proof. A child’s specific, developmentally appropriate, and consistent disclosures—especially when supported by outcry, forensic interview, medical evidence, or corroborating details—can be enough to justify protective relief, while credibility attacks must focus on real inconsistencies or contamination concerns rather than generic claims of “no forensic evidence.”"

Property Division Enforcement

Rodriguez v. Torres

COA13

After a divorce decree awarded Alma Rodriguez a $115,000 money judgment against Levi Medina, Rodriguez alleged Medina fraudulently transferred two Brownsville parcels to his daughter after Rodriguez recorded an abstract of judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for Medina and the daughter, but the court of appeals reversed. Applying Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1), the court held Rodriguez produced more than a scintilla of evidence of actual intent through multiple badges of fraud: transfer to an insider, transfer after the debt and judgment lien arose, transfer of substantially all reachable Texas assets, and a later no-compensation transfer to a church in Mexico. The court also held res judicata did not bar the suit because the fraudulent-transfer claims were based on post-decree conduct, not the divorce court’s original property adjudication.

Litigation Takeaway

"In post-divorce collection cases, direct proof of fraudulent intent is not required to defeat summary judgment. If a debtor spouse moves property to a relative after judgment or after an abstract is recorded, build the case around UFTA badges of fraud—timing, insider status, lack of consideration, and depletion of reachable assets—because those facts alone can create a triable issue."

Miller v. Boyd

COA14

In Miller v. Boyd, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment because the trial court effectively denied a verified continuance after the defendant’s attorney withdrew under Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.08 as a necessary witness. Applying Villegas v. Carter, the court held that when withdrawal is ethically required, the resulting gap in representation is generally not the client’s fault or negligence. The court reviewed the full procedural history, including substitute counsel’s appearance only one week before the summary-judgment hearing, the client’s documented health issues, the first-request status of the continuance, the finite sixty-day delay requested, and the lack of material prejudice to the opposing party. On that record, the court held the trial court abused its discretion by forcing the hearing forward without giving replacement counsel meaningful time to prepare, reversed the final summary judgment, and remanded the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"If counsel must withdraw because Rule 3.08 makes the lawyer a necessary witness, treat the continuance as a due-process issue, not a mere scheduling request. Build a verified record showing the withdrawal was ethically compelled, the client was not at fault, substitute counsel needs real preparation time, and a short delay will not materially prejudice the other side."

Skidmore v. Skidmore

COA14

In Skidmore v. Skidmore, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a final divorce decree because the husband failed to preserve most of his appellate complaints and inadequately briefed others. He challenged witness exclusion, admission of allegedly unconstitutional evidence, property characterization, child-support calculations, credibility determinations, and cumulative error. The court analyzed the appeal primarily under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and 38.1, emphasizing that appellate complaints must be timely and specifically raised in the trial court, must match the complaint made on appeal, and must be supported by record citations and legal authority. Because the record did not show preserved objections or developed briefing—and one no-evidence issue attacked a finding not contained in the decree—the court declined to reach most merits issues and affirmed the decree in full.

Litigation Takeaway

"Family-law appeals are usually won or lost in the trial court record. If you want to complain on appeal about excluded witnesses, admitted evidence, property characterization, or child-support calculations, you must make a timely, specific objection, obtain a ruling, make an offer of proof when needed, and then brief the issue with precise record citations and authority. Otherwise, even potentially strong complaints will be waived."

Child Custody

In the Interest of K.H. and D.H., Children

COA02

In this SAPCR appeal, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the trial court could not deny Mother all possession and access to her children because no live pleading sought that relief at the time of trial. Although the Department’s earlier petition had included more severe allegations and requests, it expressly abandoned termination and instead asked that both parents be named possessory conservators, with Mother receiving supervised access. Applying Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 301 and cases holding that judgments must conform to live pleadings, the court concluded that a request to restrict or supervise access under Family Code section 153.193 is not the same as a request to eliminate access altogether, and abandoned claims could not support the final order. The court reversed and remanded the portions of the orders denying Mother access, but affirmed the conservatorship rulings because Mother did not show an abuse of discretion as to the trial court’s refusal to appoint her as a conservator.

Litigation Takeaway

"If you want a Texas court to deny a parent all possession and access, you must plead that relief expressly and keep it live through trial. Requests for supervised, restricted, or limited visitation do not authorize a no-access order, and oral abandonment of broader relief can create reversible Rule 301 error if the final judgment goes beyond the live pleadings."

Evidence

Rogers v. State

COA14

In Rogers v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld admission of extensive prior-abuse evidence in a child-injury prosecution arising from a mother’s alleged physical abuse of her son and daughter. The defendant argued the many prior incidents were overly prejudicial and cumulative under Rule 403, and also challenged admission of the daughter’s prior forensic-interview statement after accusing her in court of lying. The court held the prior incidents were admissible under Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.37 and 38.371 because they involved the same child complainants and were probative of intent, state of mind, and the nature of the parent-child relationship, not just propensity. Applying the Rule 403 balancing test, the court concluded the evidence’s substantial contextual and credibility value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or cumulativeness. The court also held that the defendant’s in-court accusation of lying opened the door to admission of the daughter’s prior consistent statement to rebut fabrication and rehabilitate credibility.

Litigation Takeaway

"In family-law cases, repeated abuse or coercive incidents are most persuasive when framed as relationship-context evidence showing intent, state of mind, credibility, and household dynamics—not merely bad-character proof. And before accusing a child or parent of fabrication, counsel should consider whether that attack will open the door to prior consistent statements such as forensic interviews, school reports, or counselor disclosures."