A recent Texas appellate decision highlights the importance of carefully drafting post-marital agreements and understanding the obligations created by those agreements. In a recent divorce case, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered whether a trial court could modify contractual spousal maintenance provisions and how reimbursement claims should be handled when community funds are used to benefit separate property.

The court held that valid marital agreements must be enforced according to their terms, while also recognizing the financial consequences of the parties’ conduct after signing the agreement. Schuller v. Schuller, No. 14-24-00310-CV, 2025 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025).

Background of the Case

The legal recognition of same-sex marriage has expanded the ways families are formed, but it has not changed the legal requirements for establishing parentage under Texas law. When a child is born during a marriage, and only one spouse is recognized as the child’s legal parent, questions regarding conservatorship and possession can become especially complex if the marriage later ends.

A recent decision from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals illustrates how Texas courts continue to distinguish between a person who has acted as a parent and one who is legally recognized as a parent: In re M.S., No. 02-26-00016-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding).

The Dispute Centered on Parentage Rather Than Parenting

Texas custody cases are often decided under the “best interest of the child” standard, which normally gives trial courts broad discretion to shape conservatorship arrangements. But that discretion is not unlimited. In cases involving family violence, the Texas Family Code places a direct restriction on what a court is allowed to order.

Under Texas Family Code § 153.004(b), a court may not appoint joint managing conservators when there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of family violence. The Austin Court of Appeals recently reinforced how strictly that rule applies in H. v. N., holding that once the statutory finding is made, a trial court cannot rely on rehabilitation, elapsed time, or improved behavior to justify joint custody. H. v. N. (Tex. App.—Austin, May 15, 2026).

Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings

Texas law places significant value on the finality of property divisions in divorce. While courts retain authority to clarify and enforce the terms of a settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree, they generally lack authority to alter the parties’ substantive property rights after the decree becomes final. A recent opinion from the Waco Court of Appeals highlights how that distinction can shape post-divorce litigation involving disputed settlement language.

The Waco Court of Appeals Decision

In In re Marriage of Lannen, former spouses disputed the meaning of a right-of-first-refusal provision contained in their divorce settlement agreement and incorporated into the final decree. The former wife filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination of the parties’ rights under the agreement. The former husband argued that the lawsuit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce decree.

Texas courts have long recognized that one spouse may commit constructive fraud on the community estate by disposing of community assets without the other spouse’s knowledge or consent. A decision from the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals demonstrates how broadly that principle may apply.

In Wadhwa v. Wadhwa, the court concluded that expenditures for family vacations could be considered as part of a constructive fraud analysis when those expenditures depleted community assets and were undertaken unilaterally during the divorce proceedings. Wadhwa v. Wadhwa, No. 14-23-00521-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 22, 2025).

The Facts of the Case

Venue disputes often arise after a parent relocates to another county, particularly when modification or conservatorship proceedings are pending. A recent Texas appellate decision illustrates an important procedural limitation in these cases: even if a party believes the trial court refused to transfer venue improperly, that ruling usually cannot be appealed immediately.

In this case, the Seventh Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal from an order denying a motion to transfer venue in a custody proceeding. The court held that the order was interlocutory (temporary) and therefore not appealable.

The case serves as a reminder that Texas appellate courts generally review only final orders, not interim procedural rulings. That principle has significant consequences in Texas family litigation because parties may be required to litigate an entire custody dispute before obtaining appellate review of an allegedly erroneous venue determination.

Texas is a community property state, but community property does not have to be divided equally in a divorce, as highlighted in a recent decision from the Third Court of Appeals. In Paez v. Rodriguez, the appellate court affirmed a divorce decree that awarded the parties’ entire marital residence to the wife, despite the husband’s argument that the property should have been sold and the proceeds divided. See Paez v. Rodriguez, No. 03-24-00731-CV, 2025 WL 2325163 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2025, no pet.).

The case serves as a reminder that Texas courts are not required to divide community property on a strict 50-50 basis. Instead, courts must make a division that is “just and right,” taking into account the circumstances of the parties and any children affected by the divorce. Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001.

The Facts and the Trial Court’s Decision

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

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.

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:

Contact Information