Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
Conover v. Conover
COA01
Two daughters sued their grandfather’s estate for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, alleging he failed to properly fund testamentary trusts created by their father's will, resulting in a $3.4 million discrepancy. The First Court of Appeals analyzed whether the fiduciary relationship between the trustee and beneficiaries tolled the four-year statute of limitations under the discovery rule. The court held that while a fiduciary relationship relaxes the duty to inquire, it does not eliminate the requirement of reasonable diligence; because the daughters had reached the age of majority and had access to financial advisors and account statements years before filing suit, their claims were barred by limitations. Furthermore, the court held that an exculpatory clause in the will protected the executor because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of willful misconduct or gross negligence.
Litigation Takeaway
"A fiduciary relationship is not a license to ignore financial red flags. Beneficiaries of family trusts must exercise reasonable diligence once they reach adulthood and gain access to financial records; failure to investigate discrepancies in a timely manner will result in the statute of limitations barring recovery, even if self-dealing or mismanagement occurred."
McKeand v. Lansdown
COA14
In this procedural dispute, attorney David McKeand challenged a $10,000 sanctions order and a 2021 disqualification order stemming from ongoing litigation between Renee Sizemore and Daniel Lansdown. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the sanctions challenge under the mootness doctrine, finding that because the court had already granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate those sanctions, there was no longer a live controversy to resolve. Regarding the disqualification order, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order was issued during a prior modification phase that ended in a final judgment in 2022. The court held that McKeand's failure to challenge the disqualification at that time—either through mandamus or a timely appeal of the 2022 judgment—precluded him from raising it years later during an enforcement proceeding. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family law litigation is often divided into distinct phases—such as modification and enforcement—each ending in its own final judgment. To preserve your rights, you must challenge interlocutory orders (like the removal of an attorney) immediately or directly after the final judgment of that specific phase; you cannot wait until a subsequent proceeding years later to raise old grievances. Additionally, obtaining relief via a writ of mandamus will effectively end any parallel direct appeal on the same issue."
Travis Park Apartments v. Perez
COA03
In Travis Park Apartments v. Perez, the Third Court of Appeals examined whether an attorney's general testimony regarding work performed was sufficient to support a fee award. After her detailed billing records were excluded due to a discovery error, the claimant’s attorney testified from memory, providing a total of 141.2 hours and describing broad categories of work like 'discovery' and 'trial prep.' The court analyzed this under the 'lodestar' method, which requires specific evidence of which tasks were performed, by whom, and when. The court held that general testimony is legally insufficient to support a fee award and reversed the judgment, remanding the case for a new trial on the issue of fees.
Litigation Takeaway
"To win and keep an attorney’s fee award in Texas, 'generalities' are not enough. If you cannot produce detailed billing records, you must be prepared to testify with granular precision about exactly how many hours were spent on specific individual tasks; providing aggregate totals for broad categories like 'litigation' or 'discovery' will likely lead to your fee award being overturned on appeal."
In the Interest of N.L.
COA09
After a trial court terminated a mother's parental rights based on findings of endangerment and failure to complete a service plan, her court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating the appeal lacked merit. The Ninth Court of Appeals conducted an independent, de novo review of the record to ensure the trial court's findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b) were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court concluded that the evidence regarding the statutory predicates and the child's best interest was sufficient and affirmed the termination order, finding no arguable grounds for appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Building a trial record with 'clean' evidence—particularly regarding statutory endangerment grounds—makes a termination order significantly more difficult to overturn. The Anders protocol provides a mechanism for the finality of these orders when a thorough appellate review confirms that no reversible error occurred at the trial level."
Burns v. Standard Casualty Company
COA14
In Burns v. Standard Casualty Company, a group of homeowners and their law firm faced significant financial sanctions after filing a lawsuit that a court deemed 'groundless.' The dispute began when the homeowners claimed that a frozen pipe burst during a winter storm should be classified as an 'explosion' under their insurance policy to secure higher coverage. The trial court found no evidence to support this claim and ruled that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions against the clients and their attorneys, largely because the lawyers failed to bring a court reporter to the hearing. Without a record of the evidence, the appellate court was forced to presume the trial judge's decision was correct.
Litigation Takeaway
"Baseless 'kitchen sink' legal claims can lead to expensive sanctions against both the client and the law firm. To protect your rights, always ensure a court reporter is present at hearings to record the evidence; otherwise, you lose your ability to challenge an unfair ruling on appeal."
In the Matter of D.L.A.
COA01
In this juvenile delinquency case, a sixteen-year-old was found to have committed robbery based on the testimony and in-court identification of two victims. The appellant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence, pointing to inconsistencies in the description of his clothing and the tentative nature of some witness statements. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the case under the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, concluding that the testimony of a single eyewitness is legally sufficient to support a finding of delinquency. The court held that the trial judge, as the factfinder, has the sole authority to determine witness credibility, and any discrepancies in the evidence go to its weight rather than its legal sufficiency.
Litigation Takeaway
"In 'quasi-criminal' family law proceedings, such as juvenile delinquency or family violence cases, the credible testimony of a single witness can be enough to meet the highest burden of proof. Because appellate courts will not re-weigh witness credibility, legal strategy must focus on impeaching witness reliability and descriptions during the initial trial."
In the Matter of C.C., a Juvenile
COA10
In this juvenile law case, a minor (C.C.) challenged a court's jurisdiction to transfer his case to criminal court. He argued that his summons was not served at least two days before the hearing date listed on the document, violating Texas Family Code § 53.07(a). The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed the statutory language and determined that the 'two-day' requirement refers to the date the hearing actually occurs, rather than the date originally printed on the summons. Because C.C. was served in June and the hearing did not take place until August, the court held the service was timely. The court also ruled that once jurisdiction is established through initial service, subsequent postponements do not require new summons and that appearing for a hearing without objection waives minor clerical errors.
Litigation Takeaway
"Service of process defects regarding hearing dates are often cured by time. If you are served late for an initial date but the hearing is postponed, the statutory window is measured against the actual hearing date. Critically, if you appear and announce 'ready' at a hearing, you waive the right to challenge these types of clerical or timing defects in the summons."
Sanchez v. Gonzales
COA13
In Sanchez v. Gonzales, the appellant attempted to proceed with an appeal without paying filing fees by claiming indigency. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals abated the case multiple times to ensure the trial court complied with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f), which requires a specific written order to deny a claim of indigency. After the trial court conducted a hearing and issued a compliant order finding that the appellant was not indigent, the appellant still failed to remit the required fees. The appellate court analyzed the interplay between indigency protections and mandatory filing requirements, ultimately holding that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to comply with the court's fee notices once his indigency claim was formally denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"To stop a stalled or tactical appeal, family law litigants should aggressively challenge false claims of indigency by requesting a Rule 145(f) hearing; once a trial court issues a formal written order finding the opponent can afford costs, their failure to pay filing fees provides a direct path to dismissing the appeal."
Hickerson v. State
COA14
In Hickerson v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated by the admission of a deceased victim's prior out-of-court statements. The court applied the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine, which provides an equitable exception to the Confrontation Clause when a defendant intentionally procures a witness's unavailability to prevent their testimony. Finding that Hickerson murdered his girlfriend to silence her regarding pending domestic violence charges, the court held that he waived his right to object to the admission of her prior statements, including her protective order application and police reports.
Litigation Takeaway
"A party who uses intimidation, threats, or violence to prevent a witness from testifying cannot later use the Confrontation Clause or hearsay rules to exclude that witness's prior statements. In family law cases involving domestic violence, this doctrine allows for the admission of critical evidence—such as prior affidavits, police reports, and protective order applications—even when the victim is too intimidated or otherwise unavailable to testify at trial."
In Re Catherine Goodman
COA02
After the death of an individual with outstanding debts, a claimant filed a lawsuit in a Texas district court to recover funds after the estate administrator rejected their claim. However, Texas Estates Code Section 355.064(a) mandates that a claimant must file suit in the specific court of original probate jurisdiction where the estate is pending within 90 days of a rejection. The Second Court of Appeals held that filing in a court of general jurisdiction (like a district court) rather than the specific probate court failed to satisfy the statute. Because the 90-day window had closed, the claim was legally barred. The court granted mandamus relief, ordering the district court to dismiss the case because it had no basis in law.
Litigation Takeaway
"When pursuing an estate for unpaid child support, alimony, or property division, you must strictly adhere to the Texas Estates Code. If an estate administrator rejects your claim, you have exactly 90 days to file suit in the specific court handling the probate. Filing in the family court that issued your decree is a fatal error that will result in your claim being permanently barred once the 90-day deadline passes."