A recent article discussing separate bank accounts in marriage focused heavily on emotional and relational dynamics between spouses. The article referenced a Journal of Consumer Research study suggesting that couples who merged finances often reported higher relationship satisfaction than those who maintained separate accounts (though outcomes varied depending on communication patterns and financial transparency within the marriage).

These findings speak to marital dynamics, but Texas divorce law, however, operates under a separate statutory framework that does not turn on how spouses organize day-to-day finances during marriage. This framework frequently surprises spouses who intentionally maintain independent finances throughout the marriage.

Community Property Presumption Under Texas Law

Texas courts have broad discretion in child custody cases, but that discretion is limited by statute when family violence is involved. A recent decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals illustrates that limitation and reinforces the mandatory language contained in the Texas Family Code regarding conservatorship restrictions after findings of abuse. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004.

In a recent custody appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District reversed portions of a trial court’s conservatorship order after concluding that the record contained findings of family violence inconsistent with a joint managing conservatorship arrangement. The decision reflects a recurring issue in Texas custody litigation: trial courts retain discretion in determining a child’s best interest, but they may not disregard statutory prohibitions governing custody where credible evidence of family violence exists.

Conservatorship Restrictions Under Texas Law

Texas appellate courts apply a strict and high standard when reviewing orders terminating parental rights. Once a jury finds statutory grounds for termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001 and the trial court enters judgment supported by clear and convincing evidence, reversal on appeal becomes difficult absent a significant procedural or legal error. Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).

A recent decision from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin demonstrates this exacting standard. In B.B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the court affirmed a jury verdict terminating a mother’s parental rights after her own appointed appellate counsel filed what is known as an Anders brief, advising the court that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. B.B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, No. 03-25-00649-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 8, 2026).

The Jury Findings and the Anders Brief

In complex divorces involving high-value assets, business entities, and allegations of hidden transfers, the court’s ability to achieve equity often depends entirely on the work of a forensic accountant. A recent decision by the Fifth Court of Appeals demonstrates how Texas courts rely on financial tracing and expert reports to evaluate the integrity of the community estate.

The Facts of the Case

The litigation involved a marriage of twenty-six years and a community estate comprised of diverse business interests and real property. The wife alleged that the husband engaged in a series of asset transfers to third parties to deplete the community estate while the divorce was pending. To address these claims, the court looked to financial tracing, the process of identifying the character and movement of funds through various accounts, to determine if the community had been defrauded.

A fundamental principle of Texas family law is the distinction between community and separate property. While Texas is a community property state, property acquired by a spouse during marriage by gift, devise, or descent is characterized as that spouse’s separate property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.001(2).

This characterization remains vital even when parties have executed a premarital agreement (PMA) designed to opt out of the community property system entirely. A recent decision from the Dallas Court of Appeals, In the Interest of A.B., illustrates that even a robust “no community property” agreement does not preclude one spouse from transferring their separate property to the other through a valid interspousal gift. No. 05-25-00039-CV, 2026 WL, Tex. App.—Dallas.

Factual Background

The dissolution of a marriage involving spouses who serve as co-owners or partners in a closely held business presents unique challenges under Texas law. When marital discord overlaps with corporate governance, the court must navigate the complexities of both the Texas Family Code and the Texas Business Organizations Code. These cases frequently involve high-stakes litigation where the fiduciary duties owed to a business entity intersect with the duties owed to the community estate.

In a recent matter originating in San Antonio, a jury awarded a verdict exceeding $20 million in a dispute involving a prominent automotive dealership partnership. The litigation involved long-term business partners who were also spouses, illustrating the volatility that arises when a professional partnership is entangled with a crumbling marriage.

The dispute centered on allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and the mismanagement of dealership assets during the pendency of the divorce. The divorcing couple has a variety of other lawsuits and countersuits against each other, also awaiting decisions in the Texas court system.

In March 2026, the Texas Supreme Court will implement significant changes to Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, altering the landscape of summary judgment practice in Texas courts. These changes, applicable to motions filed on or after March 1, 2026, introduce mandatory timelines and stricter procedural requirements, creating new strategic considerations for litigants in complex civil matters, including high-asset and contested divorces.

Key Amendments to Rule 166a

The new amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a are designed to clarify summary judgment practice and impose strict procedural timelines. The most significant revisions include:

In Texas family law appeals, procedural compliance is not a technical afterthought; it is often outcome-determinative. A recent Texas Appeals divorce and conservatorship case illustrates a recurring appellate principle: when the record is incomplete, the reviewing court must presume the trial court’s judgment is supported by sufficient evidence, In re Marriage of Ray, No. 12-25-00015-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler 2025). The case serves as a reminder that appellate courts do not retry cases, and they cannot evaluate arguments that are not supported by a complete record.

Factual and Procedural Background

The underlying proceeding involved a divorce and child-related issues concerning B.R. After the trial court entered its final decree, the appellant sought review in the Twelfth Court of Appeals. However, she did not request or file the reporter’s record, which contained the testimony and evidentiary presentations from the trial. That omission defined the scope of appellate review. While the clerk’s record was before the court, it did not include the evidence necessary to evaluate the trial court’s factual determinations.

Establishing a guardianship in Texas is an exacting process that requires strict adherence to the Texas Estates Code. Because a guardianship significantly curtails an individual’s legal rights, the legislature has implemented numerous procedural safeguards to protect the proposed ward. A recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court serves as a critical reminder that failing to follow these steps can lead to the eventual vacatur of a court’s order. In the Guardianship of Wyatt Daniel Endicott, No. 25-0456.

Facts of the Case

The underlying dispute involved an application filed by a father, Robert, to be appointed the permanent guardian of his adult son, Wyatt. Robert had served as the custodial parent since 2009, and he sought the guardianship on the basis that Wyatt was incapacitated due to a mental condition, In re Guardianship of Endicott, No. 10-23-00202-CV.

Texas law draws a firm distinction between separate and community property when dividing assets during a divorce. That distinction often plays a significant role in high-net-worth divorce litigation. The dispute in a recent Texas Supreme Court case, Landry v. Landry, centered on the characterization of two investment accounts held during the marriage.

Factual Background and Procedural History

The husband asserted that the accounts were his separate property because they were funded with premarital assets and proceeds that could be traced to separate sources. The wife challenged that characterization, arguing that all property possessed at the end of the marriage is considered community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.002. She supported her argument by evidencing that the funds going into the accounts during the marriage had been commingled with the original contributions and should be treated as community property.

Contact Information