Error Preservation in Texas Civil Cases, January 15, 2022

January 15, 2022

Dear Friends:

Table of Contents

Even a constitutional complaint must be timely raised

While I won’t profile them here, opinions for the last few weeks reaffirmed that you must make complaint about the following in the trial court

Attorney’s fees
Legal Sufficiency
Pre and Post Judgment Interest
Summary Judgment


Your complaint must be timely:

Constitution: “Lastly, Cox argues that his due process rights were violated because both he and his attorney appeared telephonically rather than personally at the final protective order hearing. Walden contends that Cox has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. We agree with Walden….To preserve his due process complaint for review, Cox was required to complain to the trial court at a time when it was in the position to correct the alleged harm. Cox lodged no objection prior to or during the hearing about his telephonic appearance. It was not until his motion for new trial was filed thirty days later that Cox finally apprised the trial court of his due process complaint. We cannot construe this objection as timely, as it was not made at the earliest possible time or opportunity that would have allowed the trial court to cure any error. See Guillory v. Boykins, 442 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). We conclude that Cox has not preserved this issue for appellate review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.” Cox v. Walden, No. 13-20-00283-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 207, at *18-20 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 13, 2022)

All for now.  Hope this helps.

Yours, Steve Hayes; 817/371-8759;


Law Office of Steven K. Hayes

777 Main Street, Suite 600
Fort Worth, Texas   76102
Phone: 817/371-8759
Fax:     817/394-4436

Meetings with Mr. Hayes will be by appointment only.

Scroll to Top