The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during August 2025. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of September 18, 2025.
FAMILY LAW: Court reverses spousal-maintenance calculation.
Harwood v. Harwood, No. 03-23-00455-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2025, no pet. h.). The trial court found husband was intentionally underemployed, calculated spousal maintenance using an annual income of $120,000, as opposed to his actual gross income, and ordered him to pay $1,500 per month to wife. According to the court of appeals, Family Code Section 8.055 caps spousal maintenance at the lesser of $5,000 or 20 percent of the spouse’s average monthly gross income. Husband’s monthly earnings were $3,300. Thus, $660 was the maximum statutory amount. Section 8.055 contains no provision authorizing spousal maintenance based on earning potential rather than actual income due to intentional underemployment. The Court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded the spousal-maintenance amount.
TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court reverses dismissal where county court at law concluded damages were above the jurisdictional limits.
Giddy Holdings, Inc. v. Alpha Five Construction, LLC, No. 03-230—659-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2025, no pet. h.). In this construction dispute, Giddy Holdings sued Alpha Five in the county court at law, requesting monetary relief over $100,000 but less $1 million without pleading a specific amount. Giddy Holdings amended to clarify it sought damages of less than $250,000, within the jurisdictional limit. Alpha Five counterclaimed seeking damages over the jurisdictional limit. The trial court concluded that the amended petition did not control and granted Alpha Five’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed. The court of appeals concluded that Giddy Holdings’ request for restitution without specifying the amount was not fatal to jurisdiction. The Court held that because Giddy Holdings did not affirmatively demonstrate jurisdiction, it should have been permitted to amend. Thus, the trial court should have considered Giddy Holdings’ amended petition that cured the defects. The Court reversed and remanded.
TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court affirms appellate fee award.
Jimmie Luecke Children P’Ship, Ltd. v. Droemer, No. 03-23-00761-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 22, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Partnership sought to enforce a series of emails as a Rule 11 agreement regarding payment of $15,000 in appellate fees. The court of appeals observed that courts can enforce Rule 11 agreements even if repudiated by one party but only under contract law with proper pleading and proof. Proper pleading and proof requires a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, which Partnership did not file. At the hearing on appellate fees, Partnership asked the Court to rely on the emails as an enforceable agreement. The trial court never held a hearing on the enforceability of the purported Rule 11 agreement. The evidence established that Droemers revoked consent to the $15,000 appellate-fees settlement. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce the emails and in awarding over $31k in fees. The Court affirmed.
HEALTH-CARE LIABILITY: Court affirms dismissal where pleadings alleged a health-care liability claim but plaintiff failed to provide expert report.
Holcomb v. Seton Med. Ctr., No. 03-24-00010-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 27, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). After receiving outpatient care at Seton, employees dropped Holcomb when transporting her to her car causing injuries. Holcomb sued for negligence. The trial court granted Seton’s motion to dismiss when she failed to provide an expert report. According to the court of appeals, whether a claim is a health-care liability claim turns on the facts underlying the injury, not the pleading’s description of the facts. The operative facts concerned departures from patient-safety standards. The court concluded there was a substantive nexus between the safety standards and the provision of health care for the claim to constitute a health-care liability claim, for which Holcomb was required to provide an expert report. The court affirmed.