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

Texas law presumes that property possessed during marriage is community property, but that presumption becomes more complicated when compensation is paid after the divorce is finalized. The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, assessing how courts should analyze deferred compensation and property characterization in divorce proceedings. The decision in In re J.Y.O. illustrates how Texas courts determine whether a bonus paid after a divorce belongs to one spouse individually or must be included in the marital estate.

The Facts of the Case

The dispute in the case arose during a divorce involving a significant employment bonus and a residence that had been acquired before the marriage. The husband received annual discretionary bonuses as part of his company’s compensation structure.

Texas child support guidelines are based on a statutory formula tied to the obligor parent’s monthly net resources. These guidelines are designed to create consistent support awards across family courts while allowing trial courts discretion in certain cases.

Beginning September 1, 2025, the Texas Legislature increased the statutory cap used to calculate Texas child support for the first time since 2019. The adjustment to the net resources cap reflects the legislature’s periodic effort to align child support calculations with the economic realities of inflation.

The Net Resources Cap in Texas Child Support

In a recent Fourth Court of Appeals case, In the Interest of S.I.S.F., the court reviewed a final judgment regarding a geographic residence restriction in a conservatorship case. The trial court imposed a restriction limiting the child’s primary residence to Bexar County and contiguous counties. The mother appealed that restriction, claiming that a child’s domicile should follow that of the custodial parent. The appeals court affirmed, concluding the restriction was consistent with the Texas Family Code regarding the child’s best interests.

The case illustrates the narrow role appellate courts play in Texas family law cases. A party may appeal a final order in a Texas family law case, including conservatorship and possession orders, as in other civil cases. Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002.

Standard of Review in Texas Family Law Appeals

The trend of couples over age 50 choosing to dissolve long-term marriages, commonly called “gray divorce,” has increased across the United States, and we’re now seeing it here in Texas. Recent demographic data show a growing divorce rate for older Texans, even as overall divorce rates have declined nationwide.

Dividing Property

It’s common for gray divorces to happen after decades of marriage, presenting unique considerations and challenges in the divorce process. These divorces often involve decades of accumulated assets and retirement benefits, and how Texas addresses community property in divorce has a particularly significant impact on long marriages.

Public reporting indicates that actress Lori Loughlin sold a luxury Palm Desert property after announcing her intention to divorce Mossimo Giannulli in 2025. There was no public dispute between Loughlin and Giannulli over the sale of their home, which is notable because our attorneys often see disputes over high-value real estate—whether it should be sold, retained, or awarded to one spouse. These questions frequently fuel property division litigation in Texas divorces.

Texas is a community property state, and trial courts must divide community property in a manner that is “just and right.” A ‘just and right’ division requires the trial court to divide the marital estate equitably. “Just and right”, as established in a Supreme Court of Texas case, Murff v. Murff, does not always mean an equal division, particularly in high-net-worth cases involving complex assets. (Citation: Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981).)

Our Texas family law attorneys follow a multi-step process to determine how real estate should be divided upon divorce, and to ensure the fair division of real estate (and other assets) for our clients.

Texas trial courts have broad discretion in conservatorship decisions, particularly when the record reflects that the ongoing conflict between parents isn’t in the best interests of the involved children. In a recent case, the Third Court of Appeals reaffirmed that discretion by upholding a conservatorship ruling despite one parent’s objections to the conduct of the proceedings.

The case involved a contested conservatorship proceeding between a separating husband and wife, co-parents of two young children. Throughout their legal battle, the trial court issued multiple temporary orders addressing conservatorship and possession of the children.

Initially, both parents were named temporary joint managing conservators, but the husband was granted the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence. As the parents continued to have challenges, later court orders imposed restrictions on the wife’s possession and visitation rights.

Contact Information