Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In the Matter of the Marriage of Veronica Becerra and Jose Cancino and In the Interest of J.L.C. II., Minor Child
COA08
After a 2014 divorce decree failed to divide the parties’ marital home, the former wife later sought both recognition of an alleged informal remarriage and a postdivorce division of the omitted property under Texas Family Code § 9.203. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s rejection of the informal-marriage claim, holding the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the parties did not agree to be remarried. But it reversed the property ruling, concluding the trial court misapplied § 9.203 by valuing the home as of the 2014 divorce date and awarding each party one-half of that historical equity. The appellate court held that omitted community property must be divided in the later Chapter 9 proceeding in a manner that is just and right at the time of that proceeding, not by a mechanical retroactive 50-50 accounting.
Litigation Takeaway
"An omitted-asset case under Family Code § 9.203 is not a simple equal-split cleanup. Lawyers must plead and prove a current, equitable just-and-right division, with evidence on present value, debt reduction, occupancy, expenses, improvements, and offsets, because a court commits reversible error if it freezes value at the original divorce date and automatically divides past equity 50-50."
Benitez v. State
COA01
In Benitez v. State, the First Court of Appeals held that prior child-sex-offense evidence admitted under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37 is still subject to Rule 403 balancing, but the trial court acted within its discretion by admitting the defendant’s prior 2005 indecency-with-a-child conviction in his later child-sex prosecution. The court analyzed remoteness, limited factual detail, unfair-prejudice concerns, and the State’s need for the evidence under the Gigliobianco/Colone factors, concluding that age alone did not destroy probative value, sparse detail did not make the evidence unfairly prejudicial, and the State could still reasonably need corroborative propensity evidence in a credibility-driven child-abuse case. The conviction was therefore properly admitted because its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family cases involving prior abuse, convictions, CPS history, or other bad acts, Rule 403 objections usually rise or fall on the quality of the balancing record. Benitez is a useful analogy for arguing that remoteness affects weight more than admissibility, that a narrower presentation can reduce unfair prejudice, and that courts deciding child-safety issues may still have a real need for older but highly probative misconduct evidence."
Bernardo Diaz v. Delia Cavazos-Gamez
COA13
In this original proceeding, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that Texas Rule 202 cannot be used as broad presuit discovery to identify actors and obtain documents without strict compliance with Rule 202.4. The petitioner sought presuit depositions and six categories of documents relating to a campaign mailer, and the trial court granted the request while also denying a motion to dismiss. The appellate court emphasized that Rule 202 is a narrow, ancillary remedy requiring an evidentiary basis and express findings that either the deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit or that the likely benefit outweighs the burden and expense when investigating a potential claim. Because the order rested on insufficient evidentiary support and formulaic recitations rather than the required substantive showing, the trial court abused its discretion. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief vacating the Rule 202 order and dismissed the related appeal as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"Rule 202 is not a presuit fishing license. In family-law-adjacent disputes involving sensitive financial, medical, school, mental-health, or business records, a party seeking presuit discovery must offer actual evidence supporting the specific Rule 202.4 findings; bare suspicion and broad document requests are not enough. If a trial court orders Rule 202 discovery without that strict showing, mandamus should be considered immediately because the disclosure cannot be undone."
Lorenzo Ramirez v. The State of Texas
COA07
In this criminal appeal with strong crossover value for family-law trials, the defendant objected under Texas Rule of Evidence 614 when the trial court allowed the 17-year-old complainant’s mother to remain in the courtroom after testifying as the complainant’s guardian. On appeal, he tried to expand that evidentiary objection into facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to Code of Criminal Procedure article 56A.051(b). The Amarillo Court of Appeals held those constitutional complaints were not preserved because they were never timely and specifically raised in the trial court as required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1. The court further held the trial judge did not abuse its discretion on the sequestration issue because the mother qualified as the minor victim’s guardian and the judge reasonably concluded her testimony was already fixed and would not be materially affected by hearing the rest of the evidence.
Litigation Takeaway
"If your real complaint is constitutional, statutory, or as-applied, say so clearly in the trial court. A generic Rule 614 sequestration objection preserves only the evidentiary issue, not a later due-process or constitutional attack. In family cases, lawyers should separately preserve witness-presence, guardian-status, and constitutional objections with specificity."
In the Interest of B.B. and B.B., Children
COA11
In this parental-rights termination appeal, the mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the record under the clear-and-convincing legal- and factual-sufficiency standards and focused on the cumulative pattern of danger: deplorable and hazardous home conditions, admitted methamphetamine use, repeated refusals to drug test, the children’s positive methamphetamine tests, failure to cooperate with FBSS and Department services, and continuing instability in housing and caregiving. Although the mother showed some favorable facts, including visitation and partial service completion, the court held that this did not outweigh the evidence that she could not provide a safe and stable environment. The court affirmed the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Best-interest cases are usually won or lost on patterns, not isolated facts. Evidence of unsafe housing, drug use, refused testing, concealed third parties, and failure to follow through with services can outweigh partial compliance like attending visits or finishing classes. For family-law litigators, the case is a strong reminder to prove present safety and stability with concrete evidence, not promises of improvement."
Eric Robert Kendrick v. The State of Texas
COA06
In this criminal appeal, the defendant argued his lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to extraneous-offense testimony from the complainant’s adult sister. The court applied Strickland and held that, on a silent record, it could not find deficient performance because counsel’s reasons were undeveloped and several reasonable strategies were apparent, including a belief that the evidence was admissible under Article 38.371, Rule 404(b), or would survive Rule 403 balancing. Because the record supported plausible strategic reasons for not objecting, and the defendant also failed to show harmful jury-charge error, the court affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you may need to complain on appeal that counsel should have objected to prejudicial relationship or prior-acts evidence, build the record. Texas appellate courts usually will not infer ineffective assistance from silence when a plausible trial strategy can be imagined, so objections, rulings, limiting instructions, and—if necessary—a motion for new trial are critical."
In re Institute in Basic Life Principles, Inc.
COA06
In this original mandamus proceeding, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that a trial court abused its discretion by compelling responses to facially overbroad discovery requests in a civil sexual-abuse suit against IBLP. The requests swept across broad subjects—including religious publications, political-campaign policies, and organization-wide financial records—over expansive time periods untethered to the pleaded claims. Applying settled Texas discovery law, the court emphasized that discovery must be reasonably tailored to the claims and defenses and that mandamus is appropriate because disclosure of sensitive information cannot be undone on appeal. The court conditionally granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its blanket order compelling discovery, resolving the case on overbreadth grounds without reaching the relator’s constitutional objections.
Litigation Takeaway
"Even in hard-fought cases, discovery is not limitless. If a trial court compels broad requests that are not narrowly tied to the live issues by time, subject matter, or scope—especially for sensitive records—mandamus may be the best remedy because the harm from disclosure often cannot be fixed later."
Bernard v. State
COA02
In Bernard v. State, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed child-sexual-assault convictions and rejected the defendant’s evidentiary and procedural complaints. The main dispute was whether certain testimony from the investigating officer amounted to inadmissible backdoor hearsay—specifically, testimony explaining why no SANE exam occurred and testimony that no suspect other than the defendant had been identified. The court held the first statement could reasonably serve a nonhearsay purpose by explaining an investigative omission rather than proving the truth of the out-of-court statement, and it emphasized that backdoor-hearsay analysis turns on whether the sole intent was to place the substance of the statement before the factfinder. As to both challenged statements, the court also relied heavily on harmless-error principles because materially similar evidence came in elsewhere without objection. The court likewise found no reversible Confrontation Clause, leading-question, jury-readback, or cumulative-error issue, largely because preservation, deference to trial-court discretion, and lack of harm defeated the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Not every indirect reference to what a child or witness said is hearsay. If testimony genuinely explains why an investigator, CPS worker, counselor, or other professional took—or did not take—a particular step, a court may treat it as nonhearsay context rather than an improper backdoor outcry. But the bigger lesson for family-law litigators is preservation and consistency: make targeted hearsay objections, force the proponent to state the nonhearsay purpose, and object every time similar evidence is offered, because once the same point comes in elsewhere without objection, any appellate complaint is likely dead on harm."
Angelina Odhiambo and Dale Green v. Antony Odhiambo
COA12
After a divorce decree awarded Antony Odhiambo the Bullard, Texas property and required Angelina Odhiambo to vacate, she and another occupant remained in possession, leading Antony to file a forcible detainer action. On appeal from the possession judgment, the occupants argued the evidence did not strictly prove compliance with former Texas Property Code section 24.005(f-1) because the record did not directly show the notice-to-vacate mailing was deposited in the same county where the property was located. The Tyler Court of Appeals held that, although strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements is required, compliance may be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference. Because the record showed the property had a Bullard address in Smith County, the notice was posted there, and the certified-mail receipt reflected mailing from Bullard, the trial court could reasonably infer same-county mailing. The court therefore found legally sufficient evidence supporting the implied finding of compliance and affirmed the possession judgment.
Litigation Takeaway
"In divorce-related eviction cases, strict compliance with Chapter 24 notice rules still matters, but appellate courts may accept a well-connected circumstantial record to prove compliance. Family-law lawyers enforcing possession of awarded real property should build a clean notice record with the decree, posting proof, mailing proof, and county-specific testimony whenever possible—especially where city or postal boundaries create room for attack."
Marroquin v. Villarreal
COA03
In Marroquin v. Villarreal, the father sought to modify a prior joint-managing-conservatorship order by asking for sole managing conservatorship and supervised visitation for the mother. The court analyzed the request under Texas Family Code Section 156.101(a)(1), which requires proof of a material and substantial change in circumstances since the last order and proof that the requested change is in the child’s best interest. The appellate court emphasized that much of the father’s evidence involved incidents predating the 2022 order and could be treated only as background, not as proof of a new post-order change. As to newer allegations, the evidence was disputed: DFPS had ruled out abuse and neglect, testing was negative, and the mother denied the accusations. Because no findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested, the court implied all findings necessary to support the denial and held the record was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. The denial of modification was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In a custody modification case, you must prove a real post-order change with concrete, corroborated evidence tied to the last controlling order—not just repackage old allegations or rely on disputed accusations. And if you lose a bench trial, request findings of fact and conclusions of law, or the appellate court will imply findings against you and make reversal much harder."