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:

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.

High-profile divorce proceedings often test the boundary between public access and private dispute resolution. Recent reporting indicates that Ken Paxton’s divorce has been drawn directly into a Texas Senate primary contest, with political opponents referencing allegations that he engaged in multiple extramarital affairs during the marriage.

According to media coverage, the alleged relationships reportedly extended over several years and may have overlapped with his tenure as Attorney General. The reporting also highlights allegations of travel and personal expenditures associated with those relationships. Whether proven or not, these claims illustrate how private marital disputes, once filed, can migrate into public and political discourse.

Public Access to Divorce Records in Texas

Contact Information