Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
Andrea Nago Bidmead v. Cassandra Ann Bidmead a/k/a Cassandra Ann Brunetto
COA08
In Bidmead v. Bidmead, a nonparty claimed an ownership interest in Amazon RSUs addressed in a final divorce decree and tried to intervene in the divorce case long after the decree became final. The El Paso Court of Appeals held that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 allows intervention only in a pending suit, so a post-judgment plea in intervention is untimely unless the judgment has first been set aside. Because the divorce decree remained final and intact, the attempted intervention was ineffective, the would-be intervenor never became a party, and she lacked standing to appeal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction without reaching the merits of the RSU dispute.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a divorce decree is final and no live case remains pending, a third party cannot use Rule 60 intervention to litigate a claimed property interest. In post-decree property disputes, procedure comes first: counsel must identify a valid procedural vehicle—such as a separate suit or other authorized remedy—because an improper post-judgment intervention can end the case before any merits review."
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 Interest of P.J., a Child
COA14
In In the Interest of P.J., the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order appointing the Department as sole managing conservator after concluding the parental presumption in Texas Family Code section 153.131 was rebutted. The court analyzed the evidence cumulatively and held it was legally and factually sufficient to show that appointing Mother as managing conservator would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development. Key facts included Mother’s failure to protect the child from her boyfriend’s physical abuse, the child’s expressed fear of the boyfriend, Mother’s refusal of a safety plan, housing instability, inadequate supervision, food insecurity, and broader concerns about unmet medical and basic needs. The court also rejected Mother’s complaints about charge error, evidentiary rulings, child support, and possession restrictions.
Litigation Takeaway
"To overcome the parental presumption, build a cumulative significant-impairment record tied to concrete danger: tolerated third-party abuse, refusal to protect, instability, and unmet basic needs. For parents defending these claims, denial is not enough—document separation from unsafe partners, current stability, and a credible protective plan."
Bruce Horn v. Karla Horn
COA14
In Horn v. Horn, a brother challenged an intra-family transfer of a Houston home to his sister, alleging their elderly parents lacked capacity, that signatures were forged, and that the deed-related documents were defectively executed. After a bench trial with no findings of fact or conclusions of law requested, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals presumed all findings necessary to support the judgment and held the appellant failed to show reversible error because his briefing did not adequately develop the legal arguments with supporting authority and record citations as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i). The court therefore treated key deed-invalidity and evidentiary complaints as waived and affirmed the judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"Serious allegations like incapacity, forgery, and defective acknowledgment will not win on appeal without a trial record tied to the execution date, preserved objections, requested findings in a bench trial, and fully developed appellate briefing with authority, record cites, and harm analysis."
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."
In the Interest of A.V. and B.L., Children
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights because the judgment was based on an unrevoked affidavit of voluntary relinquishment that complied with Texas Family Code section 161.103. Applying section 161.211(c), the court held appellate review was limited to whether the affidavit was procured by fraud, duress, or coercion. The affidavit was prima facie valid, and the mother’s pro se claims of fear, pressure, and false hope were unsupported by any developed evidentiary record, including the absence of a motion for new trial. Because she failed to prove fraud, duress, or coercion by a preponderance of the evidence, the court found no nonfrivolous appellate issue, affirmed the termination order, and denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature under In re P.M.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a termination order rests on a section 161.103-compliant, unrevoked relinquishment affidavit, appellate options narrow dramatically. If a party wants to undo the affidavit, counsel must build a trial-court record with specific evidence of fraud, duress, or coercion; regret, generalized pressure, or unsupported allegations will not suffice on appeal."
In the Interest of G.H., a Child
COA02
In In re G.H., the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of parental rights after the Department proved both predicate grounds and the additional Family Code section 161.001(f)(1) requirement that, despite reasonable reunification efforts, a continuing danger in the home prevented the child’s return. The court focused on present, unresolved risk—not just past misconduct—and held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient where the parents continued using marijuana, missed drug tests, refused substance-abuse services, visited inconsistently, failed to remedy unsafe housing that included a convicted child sex offender, and showed ongoing instability. The court also held the same evidence, along with the child’s stability and bonding in foster placement, supported the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"Courts want proof that danger has actually been fixed, not merely explained away. In termination and other custody-related cases, partial compliance, a few clean tests, or promises to improve will not overcome evidence of ongoing substance use, missed testing, unsafe household members, unstable living conditions, and inconsistent contact with the child."
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."
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."
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."