Opinion Library

Property Division

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Appellant v. Buying Power, Inc., Appellee

COA14

In Graybar Electric Company, Inc. v. Buying Power, Inc., the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether a business expert's model for lost profits was too speculative to be legally sufficient. Buying Power sued Graybar for breach of contract, and their expert calculated damages using Graybar's actual historical sales to specific customers. Graybar argued the model was based on the unfounded assumption that they would have accepted every order and that the contract itself was an unenforceable 'agreement to agree.' The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the expert’s reliance on objective historical data and the parties' expressed contractual intent provided the 'reasonable certainty' required by law.

Litigation Takeaway

"When valuing a business or proving 'waste' of community assets in a divorce, expert testimony is legally sufficient if it is tethered to objective historical data and the expressed intent found in business contracts, even if the business owner claims future performance was discretionary."

Termination of Parental Rights

Ougo Menchaca Vela v. The State of Texas

COA13

In this criminal appeal, Appellant Ougo Menchaca Vela challenged his conviction and twenty-year sentence for indecency with a child. His court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous and presented no arguable grounds for reversal. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the jury's verdict and the legality of the sentence, as required by Texas appellate standards. The court concluded that there were no procedural or substantive errors and affirmed the trial court's judgment while granting counsel's motion to withdraw.

Litigation Takeaway

"An Anders affirmance of a criminal conviction for a sexual offense against a child provides the necessary finality to trigger mandatory termination grounds and conservatorship restrictions under the Texas Family Code. For family law practitioners, this opinion eliminates a respondent's ability to stay civil proceedings pending appeal, allowing for immediate summary judgment on predicate grounds like TFC § 161.001(b)(1)(L)."

MARVIN LEE JONES, Appellant v. ARLINGTON PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee

COA14

In this appeal, the appellant contested the court reporter's notice that no record existed, prompting the appellate court to abate the case for an evidentiary hearing. After the trial court confirmed that no reporter's record was ever made, the appellate court reinstated the case and set a strict briefing deadline. Despite being granted an extension, the appellant failed to file a brief. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b), holding that the failure to prosecute the appeal after the record's status was resolved required a dismissal of the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"A "missing" reporter’s record is not a permanent shield against deadlines; once a trial court determines a record does not exist, you must immediately pivot to a legal strategy based on the Clerk's Record or face a dismissal for want of prosecution."

Property Division Enforcement

In the Matter of the Marriage of Brittany Lea Lannen and Clint Douglas Lannen

COA10

Years after her divorce, Brittany Lannen sought a declaratory judgment to determine if her ex-husband's 'right to purchase' specific real estate—a provision included in their 2014 divorce decree—was still valid or had been waived. The trial court dismissed her suit, agreeing with the husband's argument that the lawsuit was an impermissible 'collateral attack' on a final judgment. On appeal, the Waco Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The court analyzed the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and concluded that because the decree incorporated a settlement agreement 'enforceable as a contract,' the UDJA was the proper procedural tool to interpret the parties' legal rights. The court held that seeking to construe the meaning or validity of a contract within a decree is not an attempt to overturn the judgment, but rather a request for the court to define the current legal status of those provisions.

Litigation Takeaway

"If your divorce decree incorporates a settlement agreement as an enforceable contract, you can use the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to clarify or interpret its terms years later. This allows parties to resolve disputes over property rights—like purchase options or rights of first refusal—without being barred by rules that usually prevent people from 'attacking' final judgments."

AHMED OLAYIWOLA, Appellant V. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC D/B/A LA FITNESS; FITNESS INTERNATIONAL GP, LLC; L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P.; AND “L.A. FITNESS”

COA14

After appealing a trial court's dismissal of his claims, Ahmed Olayiwola filed a voluntary nonsuit of all underlying claims against all parties while the appeal was pending. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals examined whether the appeal could continue despite the absence of a live controversy at the trial level. Relying on the principle that appellate courts lack jurisdiction over moot disputes, the court determined that the nonsuit effectively extinguished the controversy. The court held that because there was no longer a justiciable issue for the court to resolve or a judgment that would have any practical legal effect, the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Rule 42.3(a).

Litigation Takeaway

"A voluntary nonsuit in the trial court acts as a 'tactical reset' that moots a pending appeal; this allows a party to effectively 'vacuum' the appellate court's jurisdiction to avoid an unfavorable precedent or a poorly developed record, provided the opposing party has not filed a counterclaim for affirmative relief."

In the Matter of Marriage of Melissa Ramirez and Silvestre Fermin Torres and In the Interest of R.S.T. and A.D.T, Children

COA13

In a family law dispute, Melissa Ramirez filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. Despite this, the trial court ordered her to pay half of the mediation fees without first holding an evidentiary hearing or issuing detailed findings as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f). Ramirez challenged the order using Rule 145(g)'s expedited review process. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that because the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural steps of Rule 145(f), the resulting order was not technically issued 'under this rule,' making the expedited appellate process unavailable.

Litigation Takeaway

"If a trial court orders an indigent party to pay costs (such as mediation or amicus attorney fees) without first holding a formal hearing or providing detailed factual findings, you cannot use the expedited motion process in Rule 145(g) to challenge the order; instead, you must file a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the court to follow proper procedure."

Child Custody

Anthony David McWilliams v. The State of Texas

COA13

In this criminal appeal, Anthony David McWilliams challenged a nine-year prison sentence for second-degree felony possession of methamphetamine. The case originated from a motion to adjudicate guilt after McWilliams violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision. McWilliams pleaded 'true' to the violations, leading to his adjudication and sentencing. On appeal, his counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and the procedural requirements of the Anders process. Finding no reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Litigation Takeaway

"A final felony conviction for drug possession, particularly with a significant prison sentence, provides nearly irrebuttable evidence of a 'material and substantial change in circumstances' in a family law modification suit. By leveraging the finality of a criminal adjudication where the parent pleaded 'true,' family law practitioners can effectively argue for restricted access or sole managing conservatorship based on the 'best interest of the child' and statutory drug-use prohibitions."

The Great American Pool, L.L.C. d/b/a American Pools of Houston v. Mary J. Phenneger and Joedy Phenneger

COA01

In a dispute that the trial court sent to arbitration, The Great American Pool, L.L.C. attempted to appeal the trial court’s order granting Mary and Joedy Phenneger’s motion to compel arbitration. The First Court of Appeals analyzed its subject-matter jurisdiction, reiterating that Texas appellate courts generally may review only final judgments unless a statute expressly authorizes interlocutory review. Because an order compelling arbitration does not dispose of all parties and claims—it merely changes the forum and typically stays the case—and because the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides interlocutory appeal rights for orders denying arbitration (but not for orders granting arbitration), the court held the order was an unappealable interlocutory order. Lacking statutory authorization for interlocutory review, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction (granting appellant’s requested dismissal).

Litigation Takeaway

"Treat a hearing on a motion to compel arbitration as make-or-break: if the court compels arbitration, you usually cannot take an immediate interlocutory appeal. To challenge an erroneous order compelling arbitration, be prepared to pursue mandamus (and build a record), or you may be forced to arbitrate to the end before any ordinary appeal is possible."

TX-STAR SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES, CORP. v. ANDREA SABATINO AND ELITE LEARNING SOLUTIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

COA13

In TX-STAR Speech-Language Services, Corp. v. Sabatino, the appellant appealed a trial court's order that denied a motion to seal court records. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to dispose of the appeal. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B), which allows an appellate court to set aside a trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case for rendition of judgment in accordance with an agreement. The court granted the motion, vacating the trial court’s original order and remanding the case, effectively allowing the parties to bypass the unfavorable sealing ruling through their settlement.

Litigation Takeaway

"Parties can use the appellate process to "wipe the slate clean" after an unfavorable trial court ruling on sensitive issues like sealing records. By leveraging TRAP 42.1(a)(2)(B) as part of a settlement, litigants can secure a vacatur of a lower court's order without a merits-based review, providing a strategic "delete button" for public records or adverse interlocutory findings."

Pantoja Gonzalez v. The State of Texas

COA13

In Gonzalez v. State, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal regarding a motion for forensic DNA testing due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed the 'Final Judgment Rule,' which dictates that appellate courts generally only have authority over final judgments of conviction or orders specifically authorized by statute for interlocutory review. Because the appellant could not produce a final judgment or show that the DNA testing order fell into a recognized exception, the court held it had no power to hear the case.

Litigation Takeaway

"Before filing an appeal, ensure the order is 'final' or fits a specific statutory exception for interlocutory appeals; for preliminary rulings like genetic testing or temporary custody that aren't immediately appealable, a Writ of Mandamus is the proper vehicle for relief."