Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In the Interest of S.M.S., a Child
COA12
In this SAPCR conservatorship appeal, a pro se appellant challenged a trial court order naming multiple nonparents as joint managing conservators and raised twenty-three appellate issues, including standing and jurisdiction complaints. The Tyler Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the appellant’s brief failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1: it listed issues but provided no meaningful record citations, no supporting authority, and no developed legal analysis. Applying settled law that pro se litigants are held to the same briefing standards as attorneys, the court held that inadequately briefed complaints are waived and affirmed the conservatorship order in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"On appeal, even potentially strong family-law issues are lost if they are not tied to the record, legal authority, and a developed argument. For appellants, Rule 38.1 compliance is essential; for appellees, inadequate briefing can be a powerful path to affirmance without reaching the merits."
Austin G. Croom v. Casey L. Croom
COA05
In Croom v. Croom, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a divorce decree unambiguously awarded the wife a continuing one-half share of the parties’ present interest in AP Capital, separate from a separate $397,000 equalization judgment. Reading the decree as a whole, the court rejected the husband’s argument that the AP Capital award had been monetized and absorbed into the equalization payment merely because the asset’s value was used in the divorce balance-sheet calculations. The court concluded that “present interest” meant the community’s ownership stake at divorce, not just its then-current dollar value, and that the decree’s language awarding rights and privileges “past, present, or future” confirmed the wife’s entitlement to later sale proceeds attributable to that interest. Because the husband kept and spent those proceeds after AP Capital sold its asset, the evidence supported liability for civil theft, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court affirmed the substantive judgment but reversed and remanded the attorney’s-fees award.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a divorce decree separately awards a spouse an ownership interest in a business asset, do not assume a separate equalization payment buys that interest out unless the decree expressly says so. Draft decrees with precision: say whether the spouse gets the asset itself or a cash buyout, and if future distributions are intended to follow ownership, say that clearly. In enforcement, a spouse who pockets post-divorce proceeds from property awarded to the other spouse may face not just enforcement remedies, but tort and civil-theft exposure."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Angela Zesiger and Bryan Zesiger
COA07
The Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a Texas trial court could enforce and clarify a divorce decree awarding a former spouse one-half of the military retirement benefits accrued during marriage. After Bryan retired, the trial court converted Angela’s formula-based share of disposable retired pay into a monthly dollar amount, included cost-of-living adjustments, entered an arrearage judgment, and ordered execution of payment paperwork. On appeal, Bryan argued federal law preempted the order, but the court rejected that argument because the USFSPA expressly allows state courts to divide and enforce disposable retired pay, and the order did not reach non-disposable pay or interfere with disability-waiver rights protected by Mansell and Howell. The court further held that expressing the already-awarded share in monthly terms was a permissible clarification under Texas Family Code Chapter 9, not an impermissible modification of the property division.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a divorce decree validly awards a share of disposable military retired pay, Texas courts can later clarify the formula into a monthly amount, include COLAs, and award arrears without violating federal law—so long as the court is enforcing the original division rather than redividing property or reaching disability-waived/non-disposable pay."
In re Ahmed Ahmed
COA12
In a SAPCR-related mandamus proceeding, Ahmed challenged the trial court’s denial of his plea to the jurisdiction. The Tyler Court of Appeals denied relief because Ahmed failed to provide a Rule 52.7-compliant mandamus record. Although he claimed no testimony was taken at the hearing, that assertion was disputed and he admitted he was not present, so the court could not verify what occurred below. Without authenticated materials showing the nature of the hearing and any relevant testimony, the court could not evaluate whether he had established a clear abuse of discretion and entitlement to mandamus relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus can fail even when the underlying complaint may have merit if the relator does not bring a complete, authenticated Rule 52.7 record. In family-law cases, always secure and file the reporter’s record, material pleadings, orders, and proof of whether testimony was or was not taken before seeking emergency appellate relief."
In the Interest of A.K.B., a Child
COA04
In In re A.K.B., maternal grandparents sought court-ordered access to their grandchild after the father cut off contact. They alleged they had been deeply involved in the child’s upbringing and raised concerns about the father’s parenting, household, and the child’s emotional distress from losing the relationship. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that Family Code §§ 153.432 and 153.433 work together, so at the standing stage a grandparent’s affidavit must allege specific facts that, if true, could overcome the fit-parent presumption and show that denial of access would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being. Because the affidavits showed only a close, beneficial relationship, parenting disagreements, and generalized claims of emotional harm—not concrete facts tying denial of access itself to significant impairment—the trial court properly dismissed the suit for lack of standing.
Litigation Takeaway
"Grandparent-access cases in Texas live or die on the affidavit. A close bond, past caregiving, and criticism of a parent’s choices are not enough; the pleading must allege specific, nonconclusory facts showing that denial of access itself will significantly impair the child and that the claim can overcome the fit-parent presumption. For parents, this is a strong early-dismissal case; for grandparents, it is a warning to plead extraordinary facts with precision before filing."
Sorrells v. State
COA05
In Sorrells v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for indecency with a child by sexual contact, holding that the child complainant’s testimony alone was legally sufficient even though the defense presented substantial impeachment and contradictory evidence. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court explained that appellate review does not permit reweighing witness credibility and that the jury was free to believe the child’s account of the charged sexual contact. The court also rejected the change-of-venue complaint because the motion had been filed in a different cause number, so nothing was preserved for review in the appealed cases.
Litigation Takeaway
"In abuse-driven family cases, do not assume a lack of corroboration defeats a child’s allegations. A factfinder may credit a child witness despite inconsistencies or impeachment, and appellate courts will usually defer to that credibility call. For the accused party, the real work is building objective contradictions and preserving every procedural and evidentiary issue in the correct cause number."
Henry v. Cook
COA14
In this divorce appeal, the husband argued the trial court’s findings were too sparse to permit review of the property division because they did not disclose key valuations or explain the basis for the just-and-right division under Family Code section 7.001. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 298 required him to request specified additional or amended findings if he believed the findings were incomplete, and because he failed to do so, he waived that complaint. With no preserved challenge to the inadequacy of the findings and no judicial findings showing the values assigned to major assets and liabilities, the court could not conclude the property division was manifestly unjust or an abuse of discretion. The court also rejected his other complaints, including attorney’s fees, ineffective assistance, undisclosed-witness testimony, and failure to consider fault, and affirmed the decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to complain on appeal that findings in a bench-tried divorce are too thin, you must file a specific Rule 298 request for additional or amended findings. In property-heavy divorce cases, detailed post-judgment findings practice is essential because without valuation and rationale findings, an appellate attack on a just-and-right division may be dead on arrival."
Harwell v. State
COA14
In Harwell v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed admission of a defendant’s prior juvenile sexual-offense history in a child-sex prosecution. The defendant argued the delinquency petition was only an allegation, the adjudication materials were unfairly prejudicial, and his juvenile statement was inadmissible under Family Code § 51.095 because he was supposedly in custody. The court held the trial judge could evaluate the entire evidentiary record at the article 38.37 gatekeeping hearing—including the defendant’s own prior statement admitting the conduct—rather than viewing the petition in isolation, and that this evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the prior offense occurred. The court also held the redacted adjudication records survived Rule 403 because they were highly probative and the trial court reduced prejudice by removing unrelated misconduct. Finally, the court held § 51.095 did not bar the juvenile statement because the record supported a finding that the interview was voluntary and noncustodial. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Historical juvenile sexual-misconduct evidence can carry substantial weight when it is tied to corroborating records or admissions rather than offered as a bare accusation. For family-law cases involving child safety, Harwell shows that old juvenile conduct may remain highly probative if counsel can connect it to current endangerment concerns, while the best defense is to challenge reliability, remoteness, present nexus, and custodial defects—not just label the records prejudicial or stale."
Ting Fang Chen v. Evan H. Suzuki and Oladipo A. Dada
COA14
In this medical-negligence appeal, the plaintiff sued two physicians over her husband’s ICU death and argued that a generic docket control order extended the deadline to serve a Chapter 74 expert report. The court rejected that argument, holding that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351’s 120-day deadline runs from the date each defendant files an original answer and is not displaced by later expert-designation or discovery deadlines in a standard scheduling order. Looking to the substance of the pleadings rather than the plaintiff’s labels, the court concluded the claims were health care liability claims because they arose from medical treatment and required expert testimony. Because no expert report was served within 120 days, dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees were mandatory; the court also rejected the plaintiff’s notice and default-judgment complaints.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not assume a generic scheduling order extends a statutory deadline. When a claim is substantively a health care liability claim, Chapter 74’s expert-report deadline is a hard trigger, and missing it can lead to mandatory dismissal with prejudice. More broadly, in family-law crossover litigation, courts will enforce specific statutory deadlines over broad docket-control language, and they will look past emotional labels to the true nature of the claim."
Lionel Arce v. The State of Texas
COA14
In Lionel Arce v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that the trial court may have erred by designating a forensic interviewer as the Article 38.072 outcry witness instead of another earlier adult recipient of the child’s disclosure. The court did not resolve the outcry-designation dispute because the same abuse narrative was later admitted through other evidence without objection, including the child’s own testimony, the pediatrician’s testimony, and medical records containing a detailed account of the alleged abuse. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b), the court held that any evidentiary error was nonconstitutional and harmless because the complained-of testimony was cumulative of materially similar evidence that reached the jury through multiple independent channels. The conviction was therefore affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In abuse-driven family cases, one good objection is not enough. If the same allegation comes in later through the child, medical records, therapists, doctors, or other witnesses without objection, any earlier evidentiary error may become harmless on appeal. Preservation must cover every path by which the same story can enter the record; if you are offering the evidence, multiple admissible sources can protect the judgment."