The Bench Trial ‘Blanket Objection’ Trap: Rule 105(b)(1) Requires Limiting Requests Even Without a Jury
Memorandum Opinion by Senior Justice Quinn, 07-25-00173-CV, January 28, 2026.
On appeal from the 108th District Court, Potter County
Synopsis
Texas Rule of Evidence 105(b)(1) requires a party to affirmatively request a limiting instruction or restriction to preserve error when evidence is admissible for one purpose or against one party but not another. The Seventh Court of Appeals has confirmed that this preservation requirement applies with equal force in a bench trial; a “blanket objection” to evidence that is admissible for any purpose waives the complaint on appeal if the objecting party fails to ask the trial court to restrict the evidence to its proper scope.
Relevance to Family Law
In the high-stakes environment of Texas family law litigation—particularly in multi-party suits involving intervenors, grandparents, or business entities—counsel can encounter evidence that is admissible against one party but remains hearsay or otherwise inadmissible as to another. Ivy v. Butler serves as a stark warning: the “presumption” that a trial judge in a bench trial only considers evidence for its proper purpose does not relieve the litigator of the duty to request a Rule 105 restriction. Failure to do so allows the trial court to admit the evidence “in toto,” effectively permitting the court to consider prejudicial statements against your client that could have been restricted.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This civil action arose following the death of Charlesetta Marie Telford and her unborn child. Sandy Kay Butler, as administratrix of Telford’s estate, filed suit for damages against two defendants: Anthony Richards and Billy Glenn Ivy, Jr. The crux of the case involved a recorded statement made by Richards to law enforcement in which he confessed to the killing and alleged he was hired to do so by Ivy, Jr.
Ivy, Jr. died before the case reached trial, and the matter proceeded as a bench trial. At trial, the plaintiff proffered Richards’ videoed confession. Richards’ statement was clearly an admission of a party-opponent as to Richards himself, establishing his own civil liability and malice. However, the statement was devastatingly prejudicial to Ivy’s estate. Ivy’s counsel raised “blanket” objections to the recording based on hearsay, the Dead Man’s Rule, and the right of cross-examination. The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the video in its entirety. The trial court subsequently rendered judgment against both defendants. Ivy appealed, arguing the evidence was inadmissible as to the estate.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a party must request a limiting instruction or restriction under Texas Rule of Evidence 105(b)(1) during a bench trial to preserve error when evidence is admissible against a co-defendant but allegedly inadmissible against the objecting party.
Rules Applied
The Court focused on Texas Rule of Evidence 105(b)(1), which mandates that a party “must” request the court to restrict evidence to its proper scope to claim error in its admission. The Court also looked to TRE 801(e)(2) regarding admissions by party-opponents, noting that statements made by an individual defendant are not hearsay when offered against that defendant. Finally, the Court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a), the general rule for preservation of error, emphasizing that the trial court must be given the opportunity to correct or avoid mistakes through specific requests.
Application
The Amarillo Court of Appeals began by identifying that the recorded statement was admissible for at least one purpose: Establishing the liability and malice of the co-defendant, Richards. Under TRE 801(e)(2), Richards’ confession was a non-hearsay admission of a party-opponent. Because the evidence was admissible for that specific purpose, Rule 105(b)(1) was triggered.
Ivy’s estate argued that because the case was a bench trial, the formalistic “limiting instruction” required by the rule was unnecessary or irrelevant. The Court rejected this, characterizing Ivy’s strategy as “tossing a blanket over the entire bed.” By objecting to the evidence in its entirety and failing to ask the judge to restrict the statement’s use to only the co-defendant’s liability, Ivy failed to provide the trial court with the “appropriate framework” to avoid error. The Court reasoned that without a Rule 105 request, a trial court does not err by admitting evidence that is validly admissible for any purpose, even if it is simultaneously inadmissible for another.
Holding
The Court held that the mandatory preservation requirements of Texas Rule of Evidence 105(b)(1) apply in bench trials. To preserve a complaint that evidence should not have been considered against a specific party, that party must affirmatively request that the trial court restrict the evidence to its proper scope.
Because the video was admissible against the co-defendant Richards, and because the appellant failed to request a limitation regarding the estate’s liability, the appellant waived any error regarding the admission of the evidence. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case applies whenever “dual-purpose” evidence is offered. Consider a custody case where a private investigator’s report contains hearsay statements from a neighbor that are admissible only to show the basis of the investigator’s opinion but not for the truth of the matter. If you merely object to the report as hearsay and the judge admits it for the limited purpose of the “basis of opinion,” you must still affirmatively request—on the record—that the court restrict its consideration accordingly. In a bench trial, this looks like a motion: “Your Honor, as this evidence is admissible only for [Purpose A], we request under Rule 105 that the Court restrict the scope of the evidence and not consider it for [Purpose B].”
Checklists
Preserving the Rule 105 Objection
- Identify the Dual Nature: Determine if the evidence is admissible against a co-party (e.g., a grandmother-intervenor) or for a specific narrow purpose (e.g., state of mind).
- Avoid the Blanket Objection: Do not merely object to the exhibit “in toto.”
- The Three-Step Request:
- Object to the inadmissible portion/purpose.
- Acknowledge the admissible portion/purpose (if any).
- Explicitly request the court to “restrict the evidence to its proper scope” pursuant to Rule 105(b)(1).
- Confirm on the Record: Ensure the trial judge explicitly grants the restriction so the record reflects the court’s limited consideration.
Common Family Law Scenarios for Rule 105
- Business Records: Admissible for the entity, but containing hearsay regarding a spouse.
- Social Studies/Ad Litem Reports: Admissible for certain statutory purposes but containing inadmissible hearsay for others.
- Paramour Statements: Admissible against an impleaded co-respondent but hearsay as to the spouse.
Citation
Lane Ivy, Independent Executor of the Estate of Billy Glenn Ivy, Jr., Deceased v. Sandy Kay Butler, Independent Administratrix of the Estate of Charlesetta Marie Telford, No. 07-25-00173-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 28, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas divorce and custody litigation, this ruling can be weaponized during the admission of “out-of-court statements” by children or third parties. For example, in a custody modification where a parent is joined with a new spouse (step-parent), a recorded admission by the step-parent regarding household discipline might be admissible against the step-parent as a party-opponent. If the parent’s counsel fails to request a Rule 105 restriction at the moment of admission, that statement is now “in the record” for all purposes, including as substantive evidence against the parent’s own fitness. Practitioners should use Ivy to argue that the trial court is authorized to consider highly prejudicial hearsay against a parent if the opposing counsel was not surgically precise in their Rule 105 requests.
~~c000472c-24e7-4a96-b64f-ff7ae4072942~~
Share this content:
