Rule 194.2(b)(3) Requires Factual Bases in Family Modification Disclosures (2026)

Ryan Tolle v. Perth Tolle, 14-24-00769-CV, May 21, 2026.

On appeal from 328th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas

Synopsis

In a pre-September 1, 2023 family-law modification case, former Rule 194.2(b)(3) required more than a bare recitation of Family Code § 156.101’s elements. A party had to disclose the general factual bases for alleged material and substantial change and best interest, and failure to do so supported Rule 193.6 exclusion of the evidence and, once the evidence was excluded, a directed verdict.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters well beyond the specific modification dispute at issue. For Texas family-law litigators handling conservatorship modifications, SAPCRs, and legacy cases filed before the 2023 discovery changes, the court makes clear that boilerplate disclosures are dangerous: simply parroting statutory standards will not preserve evidence on the elements you must prove. The reasoning also has broader significance in divorce, custody, and even property litigation whenever a party relies on disclosure responses to frame claims or defenses; the court reaffirmed that disclosures must give a real factual narrative sufficient to prevent trial by ambush.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The parties’ 2016 divorce decree appointed them joint managing conservators and set the governing terms for their child. In 2022, Ryan Tolle filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship, alleging that circumstances had materially and substantially changed and that the requested modification would be in the child’s best interest. He sought significant changes, including the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence and expanded decision-making authority.

Ryan served initial disclosures in December 2022. On the required topic of “the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the claims,” he did not describe the underlying events, conduct, or changed circumstances he intended to prove. Instead, he quoted Family Code §§ 156.007 and 156.101 and stated only that there had been a material and substantial change related to the child or a conservator and that modification would be in the child’s best interest.

In June 2024, Ryan filed an amended petition adjusting the specific conservatorship relief he requested, but he continued to rely on the same modification predicates. At trial in September 2024, Perth objected to Ryan offering evidence on material and substantial change and best interest because Ryan had never disclosed the factual bases for those assertions. The trial court sustained the objection, excluded the evidence under Rule 193.6, and then granted a directed verdict because no evidence remained on the essential elements of the modification claim.

Issues Decided

• Whether the amended family-law discovery rules adopted after September 1, 2023 applied to Ryan’s live amended petition, even though the action itself was filed before that date.
• Whether former Rule 194.2(b)(3) required disclosure of the general factual bases supporting a modification claim under Family Code § 156.101, rather than mere recitation of the statutory elements.
• Whether Ryan’s disclosure, which quoted statutory language about material and substantial change and best interest, satisfied the rule.
• Whether exclusion of Ryan’s evidence was proper under Rule 193.6 absent a showing of good cause or lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.
• Whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict after excluding the evidence on the modification elements.

Rules Applied

The court relied primarily on these authorities:

• Former Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2(b)(3), requiring disclosure of “the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the claims or defenses.”
• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1, requiring complete disclosures based on information reasonably available at the time.
• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6(a), which bars admission of untimely or undisclosed material absent good cause or a lack of unfair surprise or unfair prejudice.
• Texas Family Code § 156.101(a)(1)–(2), governing modification based on best interest and material and substantial change.
• The Texas Supreme Court’s 2023 order implementing revised family-law discovery procedures, limiting the new framework to actions filed on or after September 1, 2023.
• Authorities emphasizing that disclosures must convey an actual factual narrative and not merely abstract legal conclusions, including Robinson v. Lubbering and the broader anti-ambush principle reflected in Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co.

The court also referenced authority recognizing that supplementation may not be necessary if the omitted information was otherwise made known in writing, in depositions, or through other discovery responses. But that principle did not help Ryan because the record did not establish that the factual bases had been otherwise disclosed in a way that satisfied the rule.

Application

The court’s analysis began with the threshold procedural question: which discovery regime governed. Ryan argued that because he filed an amended petition in 2024, after the effective date of the revised rules, the new family-law discovery scheme applied. The court rejected that position, focusing on the Supreme Court’s implementation order, which applies the new rules only to actions filed on or after September 1, 2023. Because Ryan’s suit to modify was filed in 2022, the former mandatory-disclosure framework controlled.

From there, the court addressed the substance of the disclosure. Ryan’s response identified the governing Family Code provisions and repeated the statutory conclusions that there had been a material and substantial change and that modification would serve the child’s best interest. But the court viewed those statements as nothing more than legal-element recitations. They did not tell Perth what facts Ryan actually intended to prove—what had changed, when it changed, whose circumstances had changed, or why those changes supposedly made the requested conservatorship modifications appropriate.

That omission mattered because former Rule 194.2(b)(3) did not require evidentiary detail, but it did require a general factual basis. The court drew a line between disclosing evidence and disclosing the factual narrative of the claim. Ryan was not obligated to marshal every exhibit or witness statement in his disclosure, but he was required to provide the elemental facts underlying his modification theory. In the court’s view, boilerplate statutory language did not meet that standard.

The court then upheld exclusion under Rule 193.6. Once Perth objected, the burden shifted to Ryan to establish either good cause for the failure or the absence of unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court found he did neither, and the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in that ruling. Because Ryan’s evidence on material and substantial change and best interest had been excluded, he was left without proof on essential modification elements. On that record, the directed verdict followed naturally.

Holding

The court held that former Rule 194.2(b)(3) governed this modification suit because the action was filed before September 1, 2023, even though Ryan later filed an amended petition after that date. An amended pleading did not convert the case into a newly filed action for purposes of the amended discovery rules.

The court further held that a disclosure stating only that there had been a material and substantial change and that modification was in the child’s best interest did not satisfy former Rule 194.2(b)(3). Those statements were merely recitations of the legal standards under Family Code § 156.101, not disclosure of the general factual bases supporting the claim.

The court also held that, under Rule 193.6, the trial court acted within its discretion by excluding Ryan’s evidence on those undisclosed factual bases because Ryan failed to show good cause or lack of unfair surprise or prejudice.

Finally, the court held that once the evidence on the necessary modification predicates was excluded, the trial court properly granted a directed verdict because no evidence remained to raise a fact issue on material and substantial change or best interest.

Practical Application

For family-law trial lawyers, the lesson is straightforward and unforgiving: in legacy family cases governed by former Rule 194, a modification petitioner must disclose the factual story, not just the statutory buzzwords. If your client claims a material and substantial change, the disclosure should identify the general categories of changed circumstances you intend to prove—relocation, educational issues, medical developments, parental instability, interference with possession, changed work schedules, mental-health concerns, substance abuse, or the child’s evolving needs. If you claim best interest, the disclosure should connect those facts to the requested relief.

This case is especially important in modification practice because the core statutory elements are broad and familiar, making it tempting to draft disclosures in conclusory form. Tolle shows that a trial court can treat that approach as a complete failure to disclose. And because Rule 193.6 exclusion is automatic unless the proponent carries the burden on good cause or no unfair surprise/prejudice, the sanction can become outcome-determinative.

The opinion also has practical spillover into divorce and post-decree enforcement litigation. Even where formal disclosure rules differ under newer family-law procedures, the strategic principle remains the same: do not assume pleadings, mediation summaries, or informal communications will substitute for a proper written factual disclosure. If the factual bases of your claim have developed through depositions, correspondence, amended discovery responses, or other written production, make sure the record clearly shows that. Otherwise, you invite an evidentiary objection at trial that may gut the case.

For respondents, Tolle is equally useful. If the opposing side’s disclosures simply recite “best interest,” “material and substantial change,” “fraud,” “waste,” or “reimbursement” without a factual narrative, there is a credible basis to press for supplementation and, if necessary, seek exclusion at trial. The opinion gives trial courts a clean doctrinal basis to reject conclusory disclosure practice.

Checklists

Petitioner’s Modification Disclosure Checklist

• Confirm whether the case is governed by former Rule 194 or the current Family Code Chapter 301 request-driven disclosure regime.
• Identify the precise modification relief sought in the live pleading.
• State the legal theory under Family Code § 156.101.
• Disclose the general factual bases for material and substantial change.
• Disclose the general factual bases for best interest.
• Identify whose circumstances changed: child, conservator, or other affected party.
• Describe when the relevant changes occurred, at least in general timeframe form.
• Tie the changed facts to the specific conservatorship, possession, support, or decision-making relief requested.
• Supplement promptly if new facts develop or the theory changes.
• Ensure the factual bases also appear somewhere else in the written discovery record, deposition record, or other admissible procedural vehicle.

Examples of What a Sufficient General Factual Basis Should Cover

• Parent relocated or intends to relocate, affecting school, stability, or access.
• Child’s educational needs changed and current allocation of rights no longer fits.
• Child developed medical or psychological needs requiring different decision-making authority.
• Conservator repeatedly interfered with possession or failed to comply with orders.
• Parent’s work schedule materially changed, affecting actual caregiving capacity.
• Substance abuse, criminal conduct, or unsafe living conditions emerged post-order.
• Child’s social, academic, or emotional functioning deteriorated under the current arrangement.
• A parent has become the de facto primary caregiver since rendition of the prior order.

Respondent’s Trial-Preparation Checklist

• Compare the live pleading with the opponent’s disclosures.
• Isolate every element for which the opponent disclosed only statutory language or legal conclusions.
• Send a written request for supplementation well before trial.
• Develop a record showing the absence of disclosed factual bases.
• Evaluate whether the facts were otherwise made known in writing, depositions, or other discovery.
• Prepare a Rule 193.6 objection targeted to specific undisclosed factual theories.
• Obtain a clear ruling before the evidence is offered, if possible.
• If exclusion removes proof on an essential element, be prepared to move for directed verdict.

Record-Preservation Checklist for the Proponent of Excluded Evidence

• Make an offer of proof or bill of exception identifying the excluded testimony and exhibits.
• Show where, if anywhere, the factual bases were previously disclosed in writing or on the record.
• Develop evidence of good cause for any omission or late supplementation.
• Develop evidence negating unfair surprise and unfair prejudice.
• Obtain express rulings on each ground under Rule 193.6.
• Ensure the appellate record contains the disclosures, objections, rulings, and excluded evidence summary.

Legacy-Case Audit Checklist

• Identify all family cases filed before September 1, 2023.
• Review initial disclosures for conclusory or statutory-only statements.
• Compare disclosures against current trial theories.
• Supplement any claim or defense lacking a factual narrative.
• Reassess witness outlines and exhibit plans to make sure each evidentiary theme matches a disclosed factual basis.
• Anticipate and brief transition-rule arguments if amended pleadings were filed after the 2023 rule changes.

Citation

Ryan Tolle v. Perth Tolle, No. 14-24-00769-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 21, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~c10a91c1-8c6f-49eb-942c-81e69c40fede~~