Opinion Library

Wilcox v. Duran

COA02

In Wilcox v. Duran, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals considered whether two counterclaims arising from a bitter custody-related dispute—abuse of process and a claim based on allegedly false police reports—could be dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The court first held the TCPA motion was timely because the counterclaims were newly added by amended pleading and contained different elements, creating a new 60-day deadline under Montelongo. But on the merits, the court held the movant failed to meet the TCPA’s threshold burden to show the claims were based on, related to, or in response to protected petitioning or free speech. The court focused on the gravamen of the claims: misuse of legal process and knowingly false reporting, not protected advocacy itself. Because simply characterizing litigation conduct or police communications as protected activity was not enough, the court affirmed denial of TCPA dismissal.

Litigation Takeaway

"In family-law-related tort fights, do not assume the TCPA automatically applies just because the alleged misconduct involved court filings, procedural tools, or police reports. Courts will look at the gravamen of the claim, and allegations of abuse of process or knowingly false reporting may fall outside Chapter 27 altogether. For movants, win step one with a precise statutory fit before arguing evidence; for nonmovants, frame the claim around wrongful misuse or falsity rather than protected communications."

Milan Paul Hlavina Von Bielka v. Hanna Kotlanova Hlavina Von Bielka

COA14

In Von Bielka, the husband tried to set aside a 2015 default divorce decree through a bill of review filed more than seven years later, arguing the decree was void because substituted service was defective and the wife did not satisfy Texas divorce residency requirements. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the decree was truly void, because only a void judgment escapes the four-year limitations period for bills of review. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that substituted service at the Houston address was valid and that the wife met the domicile and county-residency requirements under Family Code sections 6.301 and 6.308 despite significant ties to the Czech Republic. Because the decree was not void as to the divorce and property division, the ordinary four-year limitations period applied, and the husband’s late attack was barred.

Litigation Takeaway

"If you want to protect a default divorce decree, build a clean record on service and residency from day one. If you want to attack an old decree after four years, you need hard proof of a true jurisdictional defect that makes the judgment void—not just evidence the decree may have been wrong or unfair."

In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

COA02

In this original proceeding, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could extend a CPS dismissal deadline after a monitored return to a parent failed. DFPS filed a Chapter 262 case, the court later ordered a monitored return under Family Code Section 263.403, and after the return failed, the trial court set a new dismissal date under Section 263.403(c). The trial court then later purported to extend that deadline under Section 263.401(b) and reset trial beyond the Section 263.403(c) date. The appellate court analyzed the statutory scheme and held that once a monitored return is ordered and later revoked, Section 263.403(c) controls the operative dismissal deadline. Because Section 263.403 creates its own deadline framework, Section 263.401(b) cannot be used to add another extension after the post-removal deadline has been set. The court conditionally granted mandamus, holding that the extension order was an abuse of discretion and that appeal was inadequate because jurisdiction would be lost automatically if trial did not begin by the Section 263.403(c) deadline.

Litigation Takeaway

"In CPS cases, and in family cases that intersect with them, statutory dismissal deadlines are jurisdictional and cannot be stretched by agreement or routine continuance practice. Once a monitored return fails, immediately recalculate the deadline under Section 263.403(c) and make sure trial starts by that date; if the court sets trial beyond it, preserve the issue and consider mandamus quickly."

In re Triple C Project Services, LLC

COA01

In this mandamus proceeding, the First Court of Appeals held that a company’s post-incident witness interview notes and internal meeting minutes were protected as non-core work product under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5. After a workplace death, the company’s nonlawyer representatives gathered information following OSHA involvement and advice from outside risk and safety professionals, and the company president supplied an uncontroverted declaration showing the investigation was conducted in anticipation of OSHA proceedings and wrongful-death litigation rather than in the ordinary course of business. The court rejected arguments that the materials lost protection because no lawyer created them or because suit had not yet been filed, and it further held the plaintiffs failed to prove substantial need and undue hardship because witness identities and contact information had been produced, some witnesses had already been deposed, and OSHA materials provided alternative sources. The trial court therefore abused its discretion by ordering production, and mandamus relief was conditionally granted.

Litigation Takeaway

"Work product protection is not limited to lawyers. If nonlawyer representatives create witness notes or internal summaries after a triggering event when litigation is substantially likely, those materials can remain protected if the resisting party builds a strong evidentiary record showing anticipation of litigation and not ordinary business practice. On the other side, a party seeking the materials must prove real substantial need and undue hardship—not just that contemporaneous notes would be useful."

In the Interest of G.W. and M.W., Children

COA02

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals dismissed Mother’s appeal from an order terminating her rights to only two of three children in a pending SAPCR. Applying Lehmann finality principles, the court examined the live pleadings and record, noted that claims involving the third child and that child’s father remained pending, and found no severance, abandonment, or clear finality language. Because the order resolved fewer than all parties and claims and was not independently appealable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a), the court held the order was interlocutory and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Litigation Takeaway

"In multi-child or multi-party family cases, do not assume a major ruling is immediately appealable. Before filing a notice of appeal, confirm that every party and claim has been disposed of, or obtain a severance or clear abandonment; otherwise the appeal may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."

In re Makayla Montoya-Frazier and Buckle Bunnies Fund

COA02

In this original proceeding, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a Texas Rule 202 presuit deposition petition without admissible evidence to support Rule 202.4’s required findings. The petitioner relied mainly on a verified petition, briefing, and news articles to justify deposing anticipated defendants and obtaining broad document production, while the respondents offered evidence of burden. The court explained that Rule 202 is an exceptional presuit procedure and that the required findings must be supported by competent evidence—not pleadings, attorney argument, or unauthenticated media materials. Because the targets were anticipated defendants, the Rule 202 order was ancillary and not appealable, so mandamus was the proper remedy. The court conditionally granted mandamus, ordered the trial court to vacate the order granting the petition and deny it, and dismissed the attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Litigation Takeaway

"Rule 202 is not a shortcut to pre-lawsuit merits discovery. If you want a presuit deposition, especially against an anticipated defendant, you must present admissible evidence showing either that the deposition will prevent a failure or delay of justice or that its likely benefit outweighs its burden. If the other side gets a Rule 202 order without that proof, mandamus may be the fastest and best fix."

Divorce

Rullman v. Rullman

COA02

In Rullman v. Rullman, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a Tarrant County divorce because neither spouse satisfied Texas Family Code § 6.301 when suit was filed. The dispute centered on whether the wife’s stays at a Fort Worth house owned by the parties amounted to Texas domicile for six months and Tarrant County residence for ninety days, despite the couple’s longstanding life in Colorado and evidence that her time in Texas was intermittent, temporary, and tied to marital turmoil and travel. Applying settled law that domicile requires both physical presence and intent to make Texas a fixed and permanent home, and that county residence likewise requires actual living in the county with good-faith intent to remain, the court deferred to the trial court’s fact findings. It held that ownership of Texas property, repeated stays, and family connections were not enough to prove the required intent or continuity, so dismissal of the divorce action was proper.

Litigation Takeaway

"Treat Family Code § 6.301 as a threshold proof issue, not a pleading formality: before filing in Texas, confirm the full six-month domicile and ninety-day county residence periods with objective evidence showing an actual, permanent move, because temporary stays, second homes, and frequent travel can get a divorce case dismissed after significant litigation."

Evidence

Daniel Rincones v. The State of Texas

COA02

In Rincones v. State, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld admission of evidence that the defendant allegedly forced sexual acts on his wife during the same episode as the charged family-violence assault. The defense argued the sexual-assault allegations were uncharged extraneous misconduct and too prejudicial under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. The court treated the evidence as same-transaction contextual evidence because it was intertwined with the assaultive conduct and helped the jury understand the full course of violence, the complainant’s emotional state, and the medical history given for treatment. Applying Rule 403, the court held the evidence’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, especially because the State did not overemphasize the sexual allegations and the trial court gave a limiting instruction. The conviction for assault causing bodily injury was affirmed.

Litigation Takeaway

"When sexual coercion or other inflammatory misconduct is part of the same violent episode, courts may admit it if it genuinely helps explain the event rather than simply attacking character. For family-law litigators, the key fight is Rule 403: proponents should frame the evidence as necessary context tied to a live issue like family violence, fear, or danger, while opponents should push for redaction, narrower alternatives, and a record showing the evidence is being used mainly for emotional impact."

Termination of Parental Rights

In the Interest of L.Q.-W., L.W., and L.W., Children

COA02

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of a mother’s parental rights after evidence showed she attempted suicide by ingesting antifreeze and alcohol while she was the sole caregiver for three very young children. The court held that this incident, combined with her untreated mental-health issues, failure to complete services, minimal visitation, and failure to appear at trial, was legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court also upheld the best-interest finding and affirmed denial of placement with the children’s grandfather because the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that his home was not a safe relative placement.

Litigation Takeaway

"A mental-health crisis can support an endangerment finding when the evidence ties the episode to immediate danger to the children, especially where the parent is the only available caregiver. Relative placement is never automatic—family members must prove their home is presently safe, and preservation and briefing defects can sink appellate complaints."

Evidence

Perry v. State

COA01

In Perry v. State, the defendant argued the trial court improperly admitted a mother’s outcry testimony about abuse acts different from the oral-sex allegation charged in the indictment. The court did not decide whether the outcry ruling was actually wrong; instead, it assumed error and focused on harm under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Because the complainant herself later testified without objection to the same and more extensive abuse, the challenged testimony was cumulative and could not have affected the verdict except slightly. The court also upheld admission of forensic interview excerpts after defense opening statement suggested no disclosure had occurred, reasoning the evidence was admissible to correct a misleading impression. The conviction was affirmed.

Litigation Takeaway

"Winning an evidentiary objection is not enough to win an appeal if the same facts come in elsewhere without objection. In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, lawyers must preserve objections across the whole record and be careful in opening statement, because broad claims about "no disclosure" can open the door to otherwise disputed interview or outcry evidence."