No-Evidence Motion Must Specify Elements | Estate of Fugler (2026)

In the Estate of Allie Marie Brock Fugler, Deceased, 12-26-00244-CV, July 31, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law, Harrison County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) does not permit a no-evidence summary judgment motion that merely attacks the plaintiff’s overall theory of the case. The movant must identify the specific elements of the pleaded claims that allegedly lack evidentiary support, and a motion asserting only that the claims rise or fall on the validity of a premarital agreement is legally insufficient to support summary judgment.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision matters in family law because no-evidence summary judgment practice is common in marital property, probate-related family disputes, fiduciary-duty claims against fiduciaries, and litigation involving premarital or marital agreements. In divorce, SAPCR-adjacent property disputes, and estate proceedings involving surviving spouses and descendants, counsel often frame the case around a core document or theory—such as a premarital agreement, separate-property tracing theory, reimbursement claim, or alleged concealment—but Estate of Fugler underscores that a Rule 166a(i) motion cannot simply attack that theory in the abstract. The motion must connect the supposed evidentiary gap to actual elements of the pleaded causes of action. Just as importantly, the case is a reminder that a trial court may not dispose of claims in favor of a party who never moved for summary judgment, a point with obvious consequences in multi-party family litigation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The dispute arose in the administration of the estate of Allie Marie Brock Fugler. Allie died testate in 2023. She had married Thomas D. Fugler, Jr. in 1996, and the parties had purportedly executed a premarital agreement on the date of marriage. After Allie’s death, the independent executor, Charles Tackett, entered into an agreement with Thomas recognizing the premarital agreement and purporting to divide community assets in accordance with it.

Elton Don Brock and Jeffery Don Brock, Allie’s child and grandchild, challenged the handling of the estate. They sued Tackett for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, alleging that he wrongfully accepted and enforced an invalid premarital agreement, mishandled certain real-property assets, failed to disclose the agreement, and failed to disclose a conflict in representation. Their position was that the premarital agreement was invalid and should not have been enforced in estate administration.

After the suit was consolidated with the estate proceeding, Kelly Morin, as personal representative of Thomas’s estate, filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The motion asserted a single broad ground: the plaintiffs had no evidence concerning the validity of the premarital agreement, and their claims supposedly depended on that issue. Tackett did not file his own summary-judgment motion and did not join Morin’s motion.

In response, Elton offered an affidavit from a handwriting expert opining that Allie’s signature on the premarital agreement was forged. He also submitted certified property records that he contended supported the allegations regarding mishandled real-property assets. The trial court nevertheless granted the motion and entered an order stating that it finally disposed of all claims and all parties. The Brocks appealed.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court could render a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Tackett when Tackett did not file or join a summary-judgment motion.
• Whether Morin’s no-evidence motion satisfied Rule 166a(i) when it generally asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims hinged on the alleged invalidity of the premarital agreement, but did not specify which elements of breach of fiduciary duty or negligence lacked evidence.
• Whether the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the motion, even if the motion were construed as challenging a specific element.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar Rule 166a(i) framework. A no-evidence motion may be used by a party without the burden of proof to challenge one or more essential elements of a claim or defense, but the motion must specifically state the elements for which there is no evidence. The court cited:

• TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i)
• Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193, 207 (Tex. 2002)
• Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 796, 805 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied)
• Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds, 287 S.W.3d 809, 819 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, pet. denied)
• Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Killam, 53 S.W.3d 1, 3–4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied)

The court also recited the substantive elements of the pleaded claims:

• Breach of fiduciary duty requires proof of:
• a fiduciary relationship,
• breach of fiduciary duty, and

• resulting injury to the plaintiff or benefit to the defendant.

• Negligence requires proof of:

• a legal duty,
• breach, and
• damages proximately caused by the breach.

For the proposition that a court cannot grant summary judgment to a nonmovant, the court relied on authorities including:

• Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Tex. 1984)
• Young v. Hodde, 682 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Tex. 1984)
• LaGoye v. Victoria Wood Condominium Ass’n, 112 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)

On evidentiary sufficiency, the court applied the more-than-a-scintilla standard discussed in cases including:

• KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett, 593 S.W.3d 175, 181 (Tex. 2019)
• Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426–27 (Tex. 2008)

Application

The Tyler court began with the simplest error: Tackett never moved for summary judgment. Even so, the trial court’s order purported to dispose of all claims and all parties. That meant the order granted judgment in favor of Tackett despite the absence of any request for that relief. Under settled Texas law, that is impermissible. A summary judgment stands or falls on the motion actually presented, and a trial court cannot award summary judgment to a party who did not move.

The court then turned to the more significant Rule 166a(i) problem. Morin’s motion stated that the plaintiffs had no evidence of essential elements of their claims because the claims “hinge” on the allegation that the premarital agreement was invalid. The motion also recited the legal elements of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. But the motion never identified which of those elements allegedly lacked evidence. It did not say there was no evidence of fiduciary relationship, no evidence of breach, no evidence of causation, no evidence of injury, no evidence of duty, or no evidence of damages. Instead, it attacked the plaintiffs’ “central theory” that Tackett acted wrongfully by relying on the premarital agreement.

That was not enough. The court emphasized that a no-evidence motion may not simply challenge a party’s factual theory or narrative of the case in the abstract. If the movant wants to argue that a factual allegation fails as a matter of Rule 166a(i), the challenge must be tied to a specified claim element. Without that linkage, the motion is fundamentally defective and cannot support summary judgment.

The court went one step further and explained that Morin would still lose even if the motion were generously construed as attacking a specific element. Elton’s response included an affidavit from a handwriting expert explaining why she believed Allie’s signature on the premarital agreement was forged. The affidavit detailed the basis for the opinion and was not conclusory. That evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the agreement. Because the plaintiffs produced more than a scintilla of evidence on the premise Morin claimed was dispositive, summary judgment was improper in any event.

Holding

The court held that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of Tackett because Tackett did not move for summary judgment and did not join Morin’s motion. A trial court may not grant summary judgment for a party who has not requested it.

The court further held that Morin’s no-evidence motion was legally insufficient under Rule 166a(i). A motion that merely asserts that the nonmovant’s claims depend on the validity of a premarital agreement, without identifying the specific elements of breach of fiduciary duty or negligence for which there is allegedly no evidence, does not satisfy the rule’s specificity requirement and cannot support summary judgment.

Finally, the court held that even if the motion were construed as adequately targeting a specific element, the plaintiffs produced more than a scintilla of evidence through expert handwriting testimony raising a fact issue on the validity of the premarital agreement. The judgment was therefore reversed and remanded.

Practical Application

For Texas family law litigators, Estate of Fugler is a drafting case first and a proof case second. If you are filing a no-evidence motion in a divorce involving enforcement of a premarital agreement, a postmarital agreement, tracing disputes, reimbursement claims, fraud on the community, or fiduciary-duty theories against an executor, trustee, or agent, do not assume the court will treat an attack on the opposing party’s “central theory” as a challenge to claim elements. It will not. Identify the exact element and say so plainly.

The case is especially useful in litigation where the parties tend to over-focus on a single dispositive factual premise. In family litigation, that premise may be the validity of a premarital agreement, whether property was separate or community, whether a spouse had capacity, whether a disclosure was made, or whether a fiduciary acted on conflicted advice. Those may be important facts, but Rule 166a(i) requires element-by-element precision. If the claim is negligence, specify whether there is no evidence of duty, breach, proximate cause, or damages. If the claim is breach of fiduciary duty, specify whether there is no evidence of fiduciary relationship, breach, causation, or injury/benefit. Otherwise, you risk reversal even if the trial court grants the motion.

For respondents, the case supplies two strategic tools. First, attack the motion itself if it fails to identify elements with precision. A fundamentally defective no-evidence motion should not shift any burden to produce evidence on unspecified points. Second, where the motion tries to collapse the case into one factual proposition, produce focused evidence on that proposition anyway if you can. The Brocks did both: they challenged the motion’s legal insufficiency and also offered expert evidence that created a fact issue on the agreement’s authenticity.

The case also has practical significance in multi-party probate and family disputes. Orders often recite that they dispose of all parties and all claims. Counsel should ensure that the requested relief actually matches the motion and the movants. If one defendant has not moved, a final summary-judgment order that sweeps that party in is vulnerable on appeal.

Checklists

Drafting a Valid No-Evidence Motion

• Identify each cause of action being challenged.
• State the specific element or elements of each claim for which there is allegedly no evidence.
• Use the language of the actual elements pleaded, not a generalized attack on the opponent’s theory.
• Tie any factual challenge to a corresponding element.
• Avoid phrases such as “plaintiff has no evidence to support its claims” unless followed by precise element-by-element identification.
• Confirm that every party seeking summary judgment is expressly named as a movant or has formally joined the motion.
• Make sure the proposed order does not grant relief broader than the motion requests.

Opposing an Overbroad No-Evidence Motion

• Argue that Rule 166a(i) requires the movant to specify the challenged elements.
• Point out any failure to connect factual theories to elements of the pleaded claims.
• Preserve the complaint that the motion is fundamentally defective.
• Also file evidence on the supposedly dispositive factual premise if available.
• Use expert testimony where authenticity, capacity, valuation, or tracing is at issue.
• Highlight any request for relief benefiting a party who did not move.

Premarital Agreement Litigation Checklist

• Confirm whether validity, execution, authenticity, voluntariness, or enforceability is actually in dispute.
• Gather documentary evidence regarding execution formalities.
• Consider handwriting or forensic-document examination where authenticity is contested.
• Obtain the surrounding transactional documents and estate or marital-property inventories.
• Analyze whether the agreement affects all claims or only certain property issues.
• Separate contract-validity issues from tort or fiduciary-duty elements in motion practice.

Multi-Party Family and Probate Summary-Judgment Review

• Verify which parties have appeared and pleaded claims or defenses.
• Confirm which parties filed or joined the motion.
• Match each ground to each movant.
• Scrutinize “final judgment” language for overbreadth.
• Ensure the order does not dispose of claims belonging to or against nonmovants.
• Preserve error immediately if the order grants relief to a party who never requested it.

Building a Response Record for Appeal

• Object to a legally insufficient no-evidence motion in writing.
• File a response that addresses both procedural insufficiency and merits.
• Attach competent summary-judgment evidence with proper authentication.
• Use affidavits that explain methodology and factual bases, especially for experts.
• Include documentary proof on property characterization, title history, disclosures, and damages.
• Make sure the clerk’s record clearly reflects who moved and what relief was requested.

Citation

In the Estate of Allie Marie Brock Fugler, Deceased, No. 12-26-00244-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Tyler July 31, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~43dbed15-97dd-4fe7-83c6-de1b988ffebd~~