A recent decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals demonstrates how that burden is applied in practice. In O’Connor v. O’Connor, the court examined whether testimony from multiple family members could establish that mineral interests acquired during the marriage were purchased with the husband’s separate property.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not satisfy Texas tracing requirements because the financial documentation left critical gaps. (O’Connor v. O’Connor, No. 03-23-00407-CV, 2025 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Austin July 30, 2025).

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

Background of the Case

Hannah and Manish Mehta were married for more than twenty years and had triplets during the marriage. The evidence presented at trial showed that Hannah largely stepped away from the workforce and became the children’s primary caregiver. One of the children suffered from significant medical conditions that required extensive supervision and daily care.

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.

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

The denial also reflects the limited circumstances in which the Texas Supreme Court exercises discretionary review over family law matters, even where the stakes involve termination of parental rights or long-term conservatorship determinations.

The Underlying Appeal

The complexity intensifies when a single asset holds both separate and community characteristics. With statutory refinements to Chapter 3 of the Texas Family Code, the legislature has delivered guidance to eliminate judicial ambiguity in high-stakes estates. For business owners, corporate executives, and high-net-worth individuals, these updates dramatically change how complex, “mixed-character” assets are divided.

Executive Compensation: From Subjective Formulas to Rigid Fractions

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.

Case Background

In P.J.S. v. K.S.S., the parties negotiated a divorce settlement that included a series of monthly “Guaranteed Payments” from the husband to the wife. The payment structure was tied to the husband’s ownership interests in various business entities and was incorporated into the final divorce decree. P.J.S. v. K.S.S., No. 03-24-00042-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 24, 2026).

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