Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 03-25-01006-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 433rd District Court of Comal County
Synopsis
The Third Court of Appeals abated and remanded a divorce appeal because the trial court failed to issue mandatory findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding property division and attorney’s fees. Because the appellant established procedural compliance and the appellee failed to rebut the presumption of harm, the court held that abatement was necessary to allow the appellant to properly narrow the issues for appellate review.
Relevance to Family Law
In Texas family law litigation, the “just and right” division of a community estate is a discretionary act, but it is not one shielded from transparency. When a trial court fails to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law (FFCL) in a property division case, the appellant is often trapped by the “implied findings” doctrine, which requires the appellate court to presume the trial court found every fact necessary to support its judgment. This opinion confirms that for practitioners handling complex property disputes—including those involving characterization, waste, and valuation—a timely and properly followed request for FFCL is a powerful tool to deconstruct a trial court’s rationale and avoid the heavy burden of challenging every conceivable basis for the decree.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Janice Lynn Hallas appealed from a Final Decree of Divorce rendered by the 433rd District Court of Comal County. The litigation involved a wide array of contested property issues, including the characterization and valuation of assets, liabilities, and various offsets. Specifically, Janice raised claims regarding the reconstitution of the marital estate, fraud, waste, and breach of fiduciary duty. Following the bench trial, Janice timely requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Family Code. When the trial court failed to issue them, she properly filed a notice of past due findings. Despite these efforts, the trial court did not comply. Janice subsequently moved the Third Court of Appeals to abate the appeal and remand the case for the entry of the missing findings, asserting that she was forced to “guess” at the reasons for the trial court’s rulings on disputed evidence.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether a trial court’s failure to issue properly requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a divorce suit involving property division constitutes presumed harmful error requiring abatement and remand.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Family Code § 6.711(a)–(c) and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296–97, which mandate that a trial court issue findings when a judgment divides the estate of the parties. The court further applied the standard set forth in Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. 2017), which establishes that such a failure is presumed harmful if it prevents the appellant from properly presenting their case. Additionally, the court cited the recent Texas Supreme Court decision in Horton v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 692 S.W.3d 112 (2024) regarding the nature of legal presumptions and the shifting burden of proof.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the functional purpose of findings of fact: to narrow the bases of the judgment and reduce the number of contentions an appellant must address. The court noted that without these findings, Janice was placed in an untenable position. The trial court had ruled against her on numerous issues where the parties had presented competing evidence—most notably on characterization, the “just and right” division factors, and the award of attorney’s fees. Because the law requires appellate courts to presume the trial court made all findings necessary to support the judgment in the absence of written FFCL, Janice’s burden on appeal became exponentially heavier.
The court observed that Janice had meticulously followed the procedural requirements of Rules 296 and 297. Because Christopher Hallas did not respond to the motion or offer evidence to rebut the presumption of harm, the court found that the “presumed harm” rule must be strictly applied. The court determined that the record was currently insufficient for Janice to present her appeal because she could not identify which specific claims or defenses formed the basis of the trial court’s final decree.
Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed error by failing to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law following a timely request and notice of past due findings. The court further held that this error is presumed harmful because it effectively prevents the appellant from narrowing the issues and properly presenting her case to the appellate court.
The court ordered the appeal abated and remanded the cause to the trial court. The trial court was instructed to issue the requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law and to submit them to the Third Court of Appeals via a supplemental clerk’s record.
Practical Application
This case reinforces the strategic necessity of the “Notice of Past Due Findings.” Practitioners often file the initial request but neglect the second step required by Rule 297. Without that second notice, the error is waived. Here, the appellant’s disciplined adherence to the rules created a procedural stalemate for the appellee. For the prevailing party, this case serves as a warning: if you win at the trial level and the other side requests findings, it is often in your best interest to ensure the trial court signs them. Failure to do so—or failure to respond to a motion to abate—virtually guarantees an expensive and time-consuming remand, delaying the finality of your client’s judgment.
Checklists
Securing Mandatory Findings
- File the initial “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” within 20 days after the judgment is signed.
- Clearly cite Texas Family Code § 6.711 if the case involves property division or § 153.258 if it involves child support or possession.
- If the court fails to file findings within 20 days of the initial request, file a “Notice of Past Due Findings” within 30 days of the original request.
- Ensure the “Notice of Past Due Findings” includes the date the original request was filed and the date the findings were due.
Defending the Lack of Findings (Appellee)
- If the appellant moves to abate, file a response immediately.
- Argue that the failure to file findings is “harmless” if the record affirmatively shows that the appellant suffered no injury (e.g., if there was only one legal theory or no disputed facts).
- Review the record for procedural defects in the appellant’s request that might waive the error.
Citation
Hallas v. Hallas, No. 03-25-01006-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 30, 2026, order).
Full Opinion
~~ab84bc95-9c70-44da-8453-addb695e4bc0~~
Share this content: