Opinion Library

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."

Divorce

Eboni Lunsford Calbow v. Shawn Phillip Calbow

COA03

In this Texas divorce appeal, the wife sought to set aside a post-answer default divorce decree after she failed to appear for final trial. The Third Court of Appeals held that she had actual notice of the April 17, 2024 trial setting because her own verified motion for continuance expressly identified that date as the final hearing. Applying Craddock, the court concluded she did not satisfy the first element because her explanation—that she assumed the court would address or grant her continuance request without her attendance—did not negate conscious indifference. Because she knew of the trial setting, did not obtain a continuance, did not set the motion for hearing, and still failed to appear, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying her motion to set aside the default decree.

Litigation Takeaway

"A filed continuance motion does not pause trial. If you have notice of a final family-law setting, you must appear unless you have a signed continuance order or clear court authorization excusing attendance. For lawyers, Calbow is a reminder to build a clean record of notice and the absence of any continuance order; for parties, it is a warning that assuming the court will handle a continuance administratively can lead to a binding default judgment."

In re Eureka Holdings, Inc., et al.

COA14

In this mandamus proceeding, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a trial court overreached by imposing merits-preclusive discovery sanctions after defense counsel instructed a corporate representative not to answer deposition questions about security-budget allocations. Applying Rule 215 and the TransAmerican/Chrysler line of cases, the court explained that sanctions must bear a direct nexus to the specific discovery abuse and cannot resolve core merits issues unless the misconduct justifies that result. Because deeming foreseeability and reasonableness established, and barring contrary evidence, effectively decided essential liability elements without the required connection to the withheld discovery, the sanctions were improper. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief in part and struck the overbroad evidentiary sanctions.

Litigation Takeaway

"Texas courts cannot use a discovery fight to hand one side a merits win. In family-law cases, even serious discovery obstruction does not justify sanctions that effectively decide conservatorship, property characterization, reimbursement, or other core issues unless the movant shows a tight, issue-specific nexus between the withheld discovery and the proposed sanction."

Child Custody

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."

Child Custody

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."

General trial issues

Dustin Lee Jones v. The State of Texas

COA07

In Jones v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a trial court could not add post-adjudication court-appointed attorney’s fees without record evidence that the defendant had present financial resources and a present ability to pay under article 26.05(g). Jones had remained indigent, told the court he could not presently pay, and the record showed no material change in his finances. The court distinguished the original $1,000 fee assessed when deferred adjudication was imposed—which was left intact as untimely to challenge—from the later-added $2,090, which it deleted along with related collection language and withdrawal orders.

Litigation Takeaway

"If a court is asked to impose a money obligation tied to ability to pay, make the record about present resources—not possible future earnings. For family lawyers, Jones is a strong analogy for resisting unsupported fee awards, enforcement-related payment orders, or other monetary obligations based on speculation rather than current evidence."

Child Custody

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."

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."

In Re Richard Gonzales

COA13

In In re Richard Gonzales, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that a trial court exceeded the Texas Citizens Participation Act by allowing broad discovery based only on generalized claims that the information was relevant to responding to a TCPA motion. The court explained that Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 27.006(b) allows only limited discovery on a showing of good cause, which requires case-specific findings tying narrowly tailored requests to particular material facts necessary to meet the nonmovant’s TCPA burden. Because the discovery order allowed broader merits discovery without those findings, the court found an abuse of discretion and conditionally granted mandamus relief.

Litigation Takeaway

"If a TCPA motion is on file, you cannot use ordinary discovery standards to get wide-ranging documents or communications. The party seeking discovery must identify the exact material fact needed at the TCPA stage and request only narrowly tailored discovery; otherwise, an overbroad order is vulnerable to mandamus."

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."