CROSSOVER: Rule 13 Sanctions Reversed: No Bad-Faith Finding Without Evidence, Even Against Opposing Counsel

Tom Carse v. Rachel Huntress Pinkerton, 05-25-00248-CV, August 05, 2026.

On appeal from 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas

Synopsis

Rule 13 sanctions cannot stand without evidence that the challenged pleading was both groundless and filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment. In this Dallas Court of Appeals decision, the court reversed sanctions imposed against counsel because the record showed, at most, a factual dispute and a later denial of the pleaded allegations—not legally sufficient proof that counsel knew the allegations were false when the amended petition was filed.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters in Texas family law because Rule 13 motions appear with some frequency in high-conflict divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, and property cases—especially when one side adds a new party, pleads fraud-on-the-community, asserts alter-ego theories, alleges concealment of assets, or names relatives, business entities, or paramours in amended pleadings. The case reinforces that sanctions are not a substitute for disproving allegations on the merits: if a family lawyer seeks Rule 13 relief, the lawyer must bring evidence directed to the signer’s knowledge and purpose at the time of filing, not merely evidence that the accused party or newly added respondent denies the allegations.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The plaintiff’s former attorney, Tom Carse, appealed a sanctions order entered in favor of a former defendant, Rachel Huntress Pinkerton. The underlying suit was not a family law case; it involved employment-related allegations and an asserted barratry scheme. But the procedural posture is what makes the opinion useful across practice areas.

After the original defendant answered, Carse signed and filed a first amended petition that added Pinkerton as a defendant. The amended pleading alleged that Pinkerton was one of the plaintiff’s direct supervisors and that she had trained the plaintiff and coordinated her pay. Pinkerton answered and specifically denied the allegations, including that she had worked for the entity in question or had any interaction with the plaintiff.

Pinkerton then pursued Rule 91a dismissal, which the trial court denied. Later, after discovery developments and Pinkerton’s deposition, the plaintiff nonsuited her claims against Pinkerton with prejudice pursuant to an agreement that also addressed attorney’s fees and mutual releases. After those events, Pinkerton filed her own motion for Rule 13 sanctions against Carse, contending he acted improperly by adding her as a defendant in the amended petition.

At the sanctions hearing, the record reflected the admission of an affidavit from the plaintiff. The trial court ultimately sanctioned Carse, ordering him to complete ethics CLE, and stated in its order that he had knowingly and intentionally pleaded material allegations against Pinkerton that he knew were false. Carse appealed, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient to support Rule 13 sanctions.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 permits sanctions against an attorney absent legally sufficient evidence that the challenged pleading was groundless and brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment.
• Whether the mere addition of a defendant in an amended petition, followed by that defendant’s denial of the allegations and later dismissal, supports Rule 13 sanctions.
• Whether the record supported the trial court’s finding that counsel knowingly pleaded false allegations against the added defendant.

Rules Applied

Rule 13 was the operative authority. The court reiterated the familiar framework:

• A signed pleading is presumed to have been filed in good faith.
• Rule 13 sanctions require proof that the pleading was groundless and brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment.
• Groundlessness alone is not enough.
• The relevant inquiry focuses on the facts and circumstances known to the signer at the time the pleading was filed.
• The trial court must have an evidentiary basis for sanction findings; a later-developed factual contradiction or a defendant’s denial does not, by itself, establish sanctionable conduct.

The court also relied on the abuse-of-discretion standard described in authorities including Nath v. Texas Children’s Hospital, Low v. Henry, and Dallas Court of Appeals sanctions decisions emphasizing that a sanctions order cannot rest on an erroneous legal view or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.

Application

The Dallas Court of Appeals treated the case as an evidentiary failure under Rule 13. The trial court’s order expressly stated that Carse knowingly and intentionally pleaded false allegations against Pinkerton. But the appellate court focused on what the record actually proved about Carse’s knowledge, credibility, and motives when he filed the amended petition.

That proof was missing. Pinkerton’s position, and her later deposition testimony, established that she denied the allegations. But denial of pleaded facts is not evidence that the lawyer who signed the pleading knew those allegations were false when filed. Rule 13 is aimed at the signer’s certification and state of knowledge at the time of filing, not at whether the allegations ultimately survive merits scrutiny or are later withdrawn.

The record also included Carse’s explanation that he had investigated the matter and had developed information tying Pinkerton to the business through name variations, prior employment history, and alleged use of aliases. Whether that explanation was persuasive on the merits was not the Rule 13 question. The operative question was whether there was evidence rebutting the presumption of good faith and proving that the amended petition was filed both groundlessly and with bad faith or a harassing purpose. The court concluded there was no such evidence.

Just as important, the appellate court rejected the implicit notion that adding a party to an amended petition becomes sanctionable simply because discovery later undermines the claim or the plaintiff eventually nonsuits. Family litigators should pay attention to that point. Pleading against a new respondent, third party, business entity, trustee, or transferee may later prove unproductive; that does not itself satisfy Rule 13.

Holding

The court held that Rule 13 sanctions require evidence that the challenged pleading was both groundless and filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment, and that pleadings are presumed to be filed in good faith unless that presumption is rebutted by competent evidence. Because the record did not contain legally sufficient evidence of Carse’s improper motive or knowledge of falsity when the amended petition was filed, the sanctions order could not stand.

The court further held that a defendant’s denial of the petition’s allegations, even coupled with a later nonsuit or dismissal, does not by itself support Rule 13 sanctions against the lawyer who signed the pleading. The proper disposition was not merely reversal and remand, but reversal and rendition denying the motion for sanctions.

Practical Application

For family law litigators, this case is best understood as a guardrail against overuse of Rule 13. In divorce and custody cases, lawyers often amend pleadings quickly after receiving partial records, informal disclosures, social media evidence, business records, or information from the client suggesting that an additional person or entity played a role in a transfer of property, child-related interference, reimbursement claim, or fiduciary-duty issue. This opinion confirms that if the amendment is later challenged, the sanctions analysis must remain tethered to what counsel reasonably knew and investigated when the pleading was signed.

That has two strategic implications. First, if you are defending a pleading, preserve your pre-filing investigation. Keep the emails, public-record pulls, timelines, screenshots, entity searches, and witness interviews showing why the amendment was filed when it was filed. Second, if you are seeking Rule 13 sanctions, do not stop at showing the allegations were incorrect or unprovable. Build an evidentiary record directed to the signer’s contemporaneous knowledge and purpose. In family cases, that may include testimony, communications, prior contradictory sworn statements, or documents demonstrating that counsel had no factual basis for the allegation when made.

The opinion is also useful when opposing sanctions requests tied to joinder decisions. Consider common family-law examples: joining a family-owned LLC in a divorce to reach disputed assets; adding a grandparent or third-party caretaker in a conservatorship dispute; pleading a fraudulent transfer claim against a relative; or naming a business manager in a receivership-related property dispute. If the other side seeks Rule 13 sanctions merely because those allegations are denied, this case gives a direct appellate answer: denial is not evidence of sanctionable certification.

Checklists

Defending an Amended Pleading Against Rule 13

• Document the factual basis you had when the amended petition was signed.
• Preserve public-record searches, entity filings, text messages, emails, financial records, and witness statements.
• Tie each material allegation to a source known before filing.
• If identities or roles are disputed, memorialize why you believed the named person or entity was properly included.
• Keep a dated internal chronology showing the progression of your investigation.
• In responding to sanctions, focus on the signer’s knowledge at the time of filing, not on later merits developments.

Building a Rule 13 Motion That Can Survive Appeal

• Identify Rule 13 as the specific authority for sanctions.
• Prove both required elements: groundlessness and bad faith or purpose of harassment.
• Offer evidence directed to the attorney’s or signer’s contemporaneous knowledge.
• Rebut the presumption that the pleading was filed in good faith.
• Avoid relying solely on sworn denials, later deposition testimony, or the fact of a nonsuit.
• Request a record that clearly supports the sanction theory and the basis for the relief requested.

Using This Case in Family Law Joinder Disputes

• When adding a business entity in a divorce, preserve the asset-tracing basis for joinder.
• When naming a third party in a transfer or reimbursement theory, collect contemporaneous documents before filing if possible.
• When pleading conservatorship-related claims involving nonparents, clearly identify the factual predicate for inclusion.
• If challenged, emphasize that Rule 13 does not punish a pleading simply because discovery later narrows the case.
• Distinguish between a weak claim, an unsuccessful claim, and a sanctionable claim.

Avoiding the Downside When Seeking Sanctions

• Do not equate factual disagreement with sanctionable conduct.
• Do not rely on the eventual dismissal of claims as proof of Rule 13 liability.
• Develop evidence about the pre-filing investigation, if any.
• Ask whether the record shows knowledge of falsity at filing, not merely in hindsight.
• Seek findings or a record that identifies the evidentiary basis for each Rule 13 element.

Citation

Tom Carse v. Rachel Huntress Pinkerton, No. 05-25-00248-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 5, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

The crossover rule is procedural and significant: Rule 13 sanctions require evidence that the signed pleading was groundless and, at the time of signing, filed in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment, and the pleading begins with a presumption of good faith. In family law, that mechanism can arise when a party amends pleadings to add a trust, LLC, new conservatorship participant, or third-party transferee; when a spouse pleads fraud on the community or sham transactions; or when a party expands a modification or enforcement action based on newly obtained facts. This opinion underscores that the sanctions inquiry is not whether the new party disputes the allegations or whether the claim is later dropped, but whether there is evidence rebutting the presumption of good faith and proving the Rule 13 elements as to the signer at the time of filing.

~~59b3d72b-69c2-4330-afbd-3abba021a077~~