CROSSOVER: No-Evidence Summary Judgment Cannot Win Sanctions, Damages, or Other Affirmative Relief in Texas Family-Law Litigation

Johnson v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, 14-25-01059-CV, October 15, 2026.

On appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2, Harris County, Texas

Synopsis

An unopposed no-evidence summary-judgment motion does not require the trial court to award damages, sanctions, or equitable relief for which the movant bears the burden of proof. Rule 166a authorizes judgment on a claim or defense lacking evidence; it does not supply the independent evidence, procedural predicate, or legal basis necessary for affirmative relief.

Relevance to Family Law

The distinction is critical in divorce, conservatorship, enforcement, and post-divorce property litigation, where a party may combine a dispositive motion with requests for attorney’s fees, sanctions, reimbursement, damages, or equitable remedies. A no-evidence motion may eliminate an opposing party’s claim or defense if that party cannot produce evidence on a challenged element, but the opponent’s failure to respond does not prove the movant’s own affirmative claim. Family-law litigators should separate the defensive use of Rule 166a(i) from any affirmative request requiring evidence, notice, findings, a prove-up, or a traditional summary-judgment ground.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Crown Asset Management, LLC sued Carvel Johnson to collect a debt. Johnson, appearing pro se, answered, asserted affirmative defenses, requested sanctions under Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and served discovery.

Johnson later filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Crown Asset did not respond. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Crown Asset’s claims with prejudice, but it denied Johnson’s requests for damages, sanctions, and equitable relief.

On appeal, Johnson argued that the absence of a response created a ministerial duty to grant his motion in its entirety. He contended that once Crown Asset failed to produce evidence supporting its debt claim, Rule 166a required the trial court not only to dismiss that claim but also to award every form of relief requested in the motion.

Johnson separately complained about the trial court’s refusal to strike certain evidence, its refusal to impose sanctions based on alleged disclosure of identifying information and other asserted misconduct, and what he characterized as a broader failure to apply the governing law. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues Decided

The court addressed whether:

An unopposed no-evidence summary-judgment motion requires the trial court to award the movant damages, sanctions, and equitable relief.
The trial court abused its discretion by declining to strike Crown Asset’s discovery exhibits or affidavits.
Sanctions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 or Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code were mandatory under the circumstances presented.
Johnson’s remaining allegations established reversible trial-court error.

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) permits a party, after an adequate time for discovery, to move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial. The motion must identify the challenged elements. The nonmovant must then produce more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

The court relied on several authorities defining the limited function of a no-evidence motion:

Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam), addressing the movant’s obligation to identify elements for which there is allegedly no evidence.
Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002), explaining that the nonmovant need not marshal all its proof but must produce evidence raising a genuine fact issue.
B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., 598 S.W.3d 256, 259 (Tex. 2020), recognizing that summary judgment must be granted when the nonmovant fails to produce evidence on a properly challenged element.
Williams v. Williams, No. 03-21-00109-CV, 2022 WL 16702520, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 4, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.), holding that a no-evidence motion did not support an award of damages for which the movant bore the burden of proof.
Waite v. Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C., 137 S.W.3d 277, 280 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.), holding that a party cannot obtain no-evidence summary judgment on a claim for which that party has the burden of proof.
Barnes v. Sulak, No. 03-01-00159-CV, 2002 WL 1804912, at *11–12 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 8, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), explaining that a no-evidence summary-judgment ground does not, by itself, support sanctions.

The court also applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Rule 13 permits sanctions for a groundless pleading filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, while Chapter 10 addresses pleadings and motions presented for an improper purpose or without the required legal or evidentiary support. The denial of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and pleadings are generally presumed to have been filed in good faith.

Finally, the court applied Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and 38.1(i), which require preservation in the trial court and adequately developed appellate briefing supported by citations to the record and governing authority.

Application

The court began with the procedural function of a no-evidence motion. Rule 166a(i) tests whether evidence exists to support an element on which the nonmovant would bear the burden at trial. Because Crown Asset did not respond with evidence supporting its challenged debt-collection claim, the trial court properly dismissed that claim.

But dismissal of Crown Asset’s claim did not establish Johnson’s entitlement to affirmative relief. Johnson bore the burden of proving his own damages, his entitlement to equitable remedies, and the factual and legal predicates for sanctions. Crown Asset’s failure to respond did not constitute evidence establishing those matters.

The court therefore rejected Johnson’s contention that the trial court had a ministerial duty to grant every request appearing in an unopposed motion. A court must grant a properly presented no-evidence motion as to unsupported claims or defenses, but the relief available remains tied to the procedural ground asserted. Rule 166a(i) does not convert allegations in a motion into proof and does not shift the burden of proof on the movant’s own affirmative claims.

The court also determined that the evidentiary complaint was inadequately presented. Johnson did not sufficiently identify the evidence at issue, show where a timely objection had been made, analyze the applicable authentication requirements, or demonstrate harm from the ruling.

As to sanctions, the court emphasized that neither Rule 13 nor Chapter 10 makes sanctions automatic merely because a claim fails or is disposed of by no-evidence summary judgment. The trial court retained discretion, and Johnson’s appellate presentation did not demonstrate that the denial fell outside the permissible range of that discretion.

Holding

The trial court properly refused to award damages, sanctions, and equitable relief through Johnson’s unopposed no-evidence motion. Rule 166a(i) required disposition of Crown Asset’s unsupported claims, but it did not establish affirmative relief on matters for which Johnson carried the burden of proof.

The court overruled the evidentiary issue because Johnson did not adequately identify the challenged evidence, establish preservation, analyze the specific evidentiary defect, or demonstrate harmful error.

The court also affirmed the denial of sanctions. Sanctions under Rule 13 and Chapter 10 were not mandatory merely because Johnson obtained a no-evidence summary judgment, and the appellate record and briefing did not establish an abuse of discretion.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full.

Practical Application

In family-law practice, a no-evidence motion is often most effective when used surgically. Counsel should identify the particular claim or defense, determine who bears the burden at trial, and challenge each unsupported element with precision. Requests for affirmative relief should be supported through a separate procedural and evidentiary track.

For example, a spouse may seek no-evidence summary judgment against a fraud claim, an alleged informal fiduciary-duty claim, or a post-divorce claim based on an asserted contractual obligation. If the claimant does not respond with evidence on a challenged element, the claim may be disposed of. That result, however, does not automatically prove the movant’s request for attorney’s fees, sanctions, damages, or declaratory relief.

The same principle applies to affirmative defenses. A party may use Rule 166a(i) to challenge an affirmative defense on which the opponent bears the burden of proof—such as limitations, waiver, estoppel, payment, release, or ratification—if the rule’s timing and specificity requirements are satisfied. Defeating the defense does not independently establish the movant’s damages or all elements of the underlying claim.

In a property dispute, a spouse seeking reimbursement, economic contribution under an applicable theory, fraud-on-the-community relief, constructive trust, or a money judgment must establish the elements and amount of that relief. The opposing spouse’s failure to answer a no-evidence motion directed at a different claim does not prove tracing, valuation, causation, benefit to an estate, or the amount of an equitable award.

Likewise, in conservatorship or enforcement litigation, a dispositive ruling does not automatically establish the evidentiary predicates for attorney’s fees, sanctions, contempt, or coercive relief. Those remedies may require admissible evidence, particular notice, an appropriate motion, statutory authorization, and—depending on the remedy—specific findings or procedural safeguards.

A family-law practitioner combining no-evidence and traditional summary-judgment grounds should clearly distinguish them. The no-evidence section should attack elements on which the opponent bears the burden. The traditional section should identify the movant’s affirmative claims or remedies, cite the governing law, and attach evidence conclusively establishing each required element. If fees or sanctions remain for determination, counsel should request an appropriate prove-up or evidentiary hearing rather than assuming nonresponse establishes entitlement.

Checklists

Preparing a No-Evidence Motion in a Family-Law Case

Confirm that an adequate time for discovery has passed.
Identify the specific claim or defense being challenged.
Determine which party bears the burden of proof at trial.
Identify each challenged element expressly.
Avoid conclusory or global assertions that the opponent has “no evidence.”
Distinguish Rule 166a(i) grounds from traditional Rule 166a(c) grounds.
State precisely what disposition follows if the challenged element lacks evidence.
Do not treat allegations supporting your own affirmative relief as summary-judgment evidence.

Seeking Affirmative Relief Alongside the Motion

Identify the independent statutory, contractual, or equitable basis for each requested remedy.
Determine whether the relief requires a traditional summary-judgment ground, an evidentiary hearing, or a trial.
Submit competent evidence establishing each element for which your client bears the burden.
Prove the existence and amount of damages rather than relying on nonresponse.
Support attorney’s fees with evidence addressing recoverability, reasonableness, necessity, and segregation when required.
Establish the legal and factual predicates for sanctions separately from the no-evidence challenge.
Request findings when the governing sanctions mechanism requires them.
Obtain a clear ruling on each separate request for relief.

Responding to a No-Evidence Motion

Calendar the response deadline under Rule 166a and any applicable local procedures.
Confirm that the motion was filed after an adequate time for discovery.
Determine whether the motion specifically identifies the challenged elements.
Object if the motion is conclusory or improperly challenges a matter on which the movant bears the burden.
Attach admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on every challenged element.
Authenticate exhibits and address hearsay or other evidentiary issues.
Obtain rulings on objections and preserve them in the record.
Do not assume that evidence elsewhere in the clerk’s record will be considered without being properly presented.

Preserving Sanctions and Evidentiary Issues

Identify the precise sanctions authority being invoked.
Satisfy all notice and procedural requirements applicable to that authority.
Present evidence supporting each required finding.
Secure an express ruling from the trial court.
Identify challenged exhibits specifically by title, date, and record location.
State evidentiary objections with sufficient specificity.
Explain why the ruling probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment.
Support appellate arguments with citations to both the record and controlling authority.

Drafting the Proposed Order

Limit no-evidence relief to the claims or defenses properly challenged.
Address traditional summary-judgment grounds separately.
Separate disposition of liability from damages, fees, sanctions, and equitable remedies.
State whether any affirmative requests remain pending.
Avoid language suggesting that nonresponse constitutes an admission of unproven affirmative allegations.
Confirm whether the order disposes of all parties and claims for finality purposes.

Citation

Johnson v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, No. 14-25-01059-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 15, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

Family Law Crossover

The crossover rule is procedural: Rule 166a(i) operates only against a claim or defense on which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial. If the nonmovant fails to produce evidence on a properly challenged element, the court must grant summary judgment as to that claim or defense. The rule does not establish the movant’s entitlement to affirmative relief merely because the motion is unopposed.

That distinction can arise whenever a Texas family-law motion combines a no-evidence challenge with a request for independent relief. Examples include a spouse attacking a reimbursement claim while requesting a money judgment, challenging an affirmative defense while seeking contractual attorney’s fees, or defeating a post-divorce property claim while requesting sanctions. The no-evidence component may dispose of the opponent’s unsupported theory, but the movant must still establish any damages, fees, sanctions, or equitable remedy through the evidence and procedure applicable to that relief.

~~d1565bdc-7eb7-4882-8320-b09b08f298c4~~

Share this content: