Laurie Ratliff is a former staff attorney  for the Third Court of Appeals. She is  board-certified in civil appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and owner of Laurie Ratliff LLC. 

The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during April 2026. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of May 8, 2026. 

MANDAMUS: Court grants relief for grandparent-access order signed after plenary power expired. 

In re B.W.A., No. 03-25-00931-CV (Tex. App.—Austin April 1, 2026, orig. proceeding). Relators, adoptive parents of two minor children, signed a master service agreement (MSA) in 2017 giving biological Grandparents (real parties in interest) access. No order was entered on the MSA. Ultimately, Relators denied Grandparents visitation. In 2025, Grandparents filed a modification proceeding seeking a judgment on the MSA. The trial court denied Relators’ plea to the jurisdiction and entered an order granting Grandparent access. The court of appeals concluded that, without the MSA, Grandparents lacked standing under Family Code Section 153.434 because biological mother relinquished her parental rights and biological father was deceased. Execution of the MSA, without an order on it, was not a request for possession and access. The adoption order was signed Feb. 16, 2018. Thus, plenary power ended 30 days later. Because the trial court signed the Grandparent-access order after plenary power expired, the order was void. The court granted mandamus relief. 

MANDAMUS: Court grants relief where trial court denied production of tax returns.

In re Johnson, No. 03-26-00121-CV (Tex. App.—Austin April 9, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In this family law matter, Mother sought above-guidelines support and requested production of Father’s unredacted tax returns. Father claimed to have investments worth between $1 million and $50 million but refused to give any specifics. The trial court denied Mother’s motion to compel. On mandamus, the court of appeals held that Family Code Section 154.063’s requirement for production of tax returns is mandatory. Additionally, Father’s tax returns were relevant for the trial court to allocate the responsibility to meet the child’s needs between the parties. The court held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel. The court rejected Father’s laches argument. Mother waited almost two months to seek mandamus relief. The court granted relief. 

TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court reverses dismissal under Rule 91a in private nuisance lawsuit.

Clements v. McBroom, No. 03-25-00442-CV (Tex. App.—Austin April 9, 2026, no pet. h.). Appellants (“Landowners”) sued McBrooms for private nuisance seeking injunctive relief to halt construction of a battery energy storage system (BESS) on McBrooms’ property. Landowners’ contended McBrooms were negligent by not having a court-approved hazard- mitigation plan for a high-risk industrial property. Landowners’ alleged that BESS relies on lithium-ion batteries, which are prone to thermal runaway fires; Fayette County lacks emergency-response infrastructure for handling such fires; and that Landowners’ properties were within a mile of the proposed site. The trial court dismissed Landowners’ lawsuit under Rule 91a and awarded attorney’s fees. According to the court of appeals, Landowners stated a negligence cause of action and asserted a legal injury of private nuisance. Landowners’ allegations, if proven, support injunctive relief given the imminent actions taken to construct the BESS without a hazard-mitigation plan. The court reversed and remanded. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES: Court reverses fee award based on overly redacted billing records. 

Nunez v. Nichols, No. 03-24-00263-CV (Tex. App.—Austin April 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The trial court ordered Father to pay support for an adult child with disabilities and to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees. Attorney testified to hourly rates and introduced redacted billing records, offering to provide the court an unredacted copy. Father did not request in-camera review of the unredacted bills. According to the court of appeals, the “determinative factor is whether the bills provide sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion, regardless of how much or little they were redacted.” The redactions eliminated information that would allow Father to challenge the reasonableness of the fees. The court rejected Mother’s argument that the offer to provide the court with unredacted copies mooted Father’s complaint. The court reversed and remanded the attorney’s-fees issue.