Background

The underlying dispute arose from divorce proceedings between Graham Weston and Elizabeth Weston. The attorney at issue had previously represented Graham Weston and related business entities over a period of years in matters tied to the family’s financial and corporate interests. The latter representation of Elizabeth Weston in divorce litigation against Graham formed the basis of the conflict allegations. (Graham had previously filed for divorce, then nonsuited the petition and was not represented by Davis during that initial divorce filing.)

Filing Dates Now Control Summary Judgment Deadlines

Prior versions of Rule 166a tied most deadlines to the hearing date selected by the movant. The revised rule instead measures deadlines from the date the motion itself is filed. Under amended Rule 166a, a response is generally due 21 days after the motion is filed, while the movant’s reply is due seven days later. The court must then set the hearing or submission within designated periods. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(d)-(f).

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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.