TRCP Rule 76a Excludes Family Code Records | Murillo Marriage (2026)

In the Matter of the Marriage of Daniel Maurice Murillo and Lindsey Marie Murillo, 08-26-00311-CV, September 02, 2026.

On appeal from 362nd District Court, Denton County, Texas

Synopsis

Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure does not convert a post-judgment order denying a motion to seal records in a divorce case into a severed, separately appealable final judgment. Because Rule 76a expressly excludes documents filed in actions originally arising under the Family Code, any challenge to a sealing ruling in a divorce case must proceed within the same appellate cause as the underlying family-law matter, not through a new, stand-alone appeal.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters directly to Texas family-law litigators handling divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, and property-division disputes where confidentiality concerns routinely arise. If the underlying case originally arises under the Family Code, practitioners cannot rely on Rule 76a’s severance-and-immediate-appeal mechanism for orders concerning sealing or access to filed documents. Strategically, that changes how counsel should preserve error, perfect appellate review, caption notices of appeal, and manage sensitive filings involving financial records, business valuations, mental-health information, or allegations affecting children and conservatorship.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

After the trial court signed a final decree of divorce in Denton County cause number 24-7522-362, the husband appealed that decree. That first appeal was already pending in the court of appeals under a separate appellate cause number after transfer to the Eighth Court of Appeals.

While that divorce appeal remained pending, the husband filed another notice of appeal from a post-judgment order denying his motion to seal court records in the same divorce case. He invoked Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a(8), which generally provides that an order relating to sealing or unsealing court records is deemed severed from the underlying case and treated as a final judgment for appeal purposes. The court therefore had to determine whether Rule 76a applied at all to documents filed in a divorce proceeding and, if not, whether the second notice of appeal could support a separate appellate cause.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a(8) makes an order denying a motion to seal records in a divorce case a severed, appealable final judgment.
• Whether documents filed in a suit originally arising under the Family Code qualify as “court records” under Rule 76a(2)(a).
• Whether a second notice of appeal from the same trial-court cause number should proceed under the same appellate docket number under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.2(c), rather than as a separate appeal.

Rules Applied

The court relied first on the text of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a. Rule 76a(8) states that an order relating to sealing or unsealing court records is deemed severed from the case and is a final judgment that may be appealed. But that provision only matters if the documents at issue are “court records” as defined by Rule 76a.

Rule 76a(2)(a) defines court records broadly, then expressly excludes several categories, including “documents filed in any action originally arising under the Family Code.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(2)(a)(3). The court paired that exclusion with the nature of the underlying suit here: a dissolution of marriage under Chapter 6 of the Texas Family Code.

The court also cited Rule 76a(9), which confirms that access to documents not defined as court records by Rule 76a remains governed by existing law. That reinforced the conclusion that family-law filings sit outside the Rule 76a framework.

On the appellate-procedure side, the court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.2(c), which provides that notices of appeal filed in the same case must be given the same docket number.

For persuasive authority, the court cited:

• Hirczy de Mino v. Paxton, No. 05-25-00981-CV, 2025 WL 2697296, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 22, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.), holding that Rule 76a excludes documents filed in actions arising under the Family Code and therefore did not authorize a separate appeal of a sealing order in a divorce suit.
• In re B.H., No. 14-22-00068-CV, 2023 WL 5236040, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 15, 2023, no pet.), concluding from Rule 76a’s plain text that suits arising under the Family Code are not covered and thus are not severed from the underlying cause.
• Grossman v. City of El Paso, No. 08-19-00277-CV, 2019 WL 6336405, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Nov. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.), supporting administrative dismissal of a separately docketed appeal.

Application

The court’s reasoning was straightforward and text-driven. The appellant tried to invoke Rule 76a(8)’s powerful procedural benefit: automatic severance and immediate appealability of an order denying sealing. But the court began one step earlier and asked whether Rule 76a covered the documents in the first place. That inquiry was dispositive.

Because the underlying proceeding was a divorce, it was an action originally arising under the Family Code. Rule 76a(2)(a)(3) expressly excludes documents filed in such actions from the definition of “court records.” Once that exclusion applied, the appellant could not use Rule 76a(8)’s severance language to manufacture a separate final judgment out of the sealing order.

That meant the order denying sealing never left the orbit of the original divorce case. It remained part of trial court cause number 24-7522-362, just like any other post-judgment ruling in that Family Code matter. Since an appeal from the divorce decree was already pending, the later notice of appeal concerning the sealing order had to be treated as part of the same appellate case under Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.2(c). The court therefore directed its clerk to move the filings from the separately docketed appeal into the already-pending appeal and dismissed the second appeal for administrative purposes.

Holding

The court held that Rule 76a does not apply to documents filed in actions originally arising under the Family Code. As a result, filings in a divorce case are not “court records” within the meaning of Rule 76a(2)(a), and Rule 76a’s special procedures for sealing, severance, and appeal do not govern them.

The court further held that an order denying a motion to seal records in a divorce proceeding is not automatically severed into a separate final judgment under Rule 76a(8). Because the order remains part of the underlying family-law case, a separate appeal is improper.

Finally, the court held that where both notices of appeal arise from the same trial-court cause number, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.2(c) requires that they proceed under the same appellate docket number. The second appeal was therefore dismissed administratively, and its papers were ordered filed into the existing divorce appeal.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Murillo is primarily a jurisdiction and procedure case, but its practical consequences are substantial. First, do not assume that a motion labeled as a Rule 76a sealing motion carries Rule 76a appellate rights simply because it concerns confidentiality. In Family Code litigation, the threshold problem is that Rule 76a likely never applies. Second, if a final decree or other appealable order is already on appeal, and the trial court later enters an order concerning confidentiality, access restrictions, or sealing in that same cause, counsel should analyze whether review belongs in the existing appeal rather than through a separately perfected appeal.

The case is especially important in high-asset divorce and custody litigation, where lawyers often seek to protect business records, tax returns, trust materials, medical information, child-related records, or allegations with reputational impact. Murillo signals that counsel must ground confidentiality requests in authorities other than Rule 76a when the suit originally arises under the Family Code. That may include statutory confidentiality provisions, protective orders, in camera procedures, redaction practice, restricted access under clerk protocols, or targeted relief tied to privacy interests recognized elsewhere in Texas law.

From an appellate standpoint, Murillo also teaches a housekeeping lesson: multiple notices of appeal from the same family-law cause number do not necessarily generate multiple valid appellate proceedings. If one appeal is already pending, later appellate activity may need to be folded into that same docket. Failing to do so can waste time, invite dismissal, and complicate briefing and record preparation.

For trial lawyers, the strategic point is to think about confidentiality early. If sensitive material will matter at temporary-orders hearings, expert disclosures, inventory-and-appraisement practice, or enforcement proceedings, build a confidentiality protocol before the documents are filed. Once the records are in a Family Code case, Rule 76a is not your off-ramp.

Checklists

Evaluating Whether Rule 76a Applies

• Identify the character of the underlying suit, not just the nature of the documents.
• Ask whether the action originally arises under the Family Code.
• If the case is a divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, paternity, or other Family Code proceeding, assume Rule 76a may be unavailable unless another authority clearly says otherwise.
• Read Rule 76a(2)(a)(3) before filing any motion framed as a Rule 76a sealing request.
• Do not rely on Rule 76a(8) severance language unless the documents actually qualify as “court records” under the rule.

Preserving Appellate Review of Confidentiality Rulings in Family-Law Cases

• Determine whether an appeal from the underlying Family Code case is already pending.
• If so, evaluate whether the confidentiality ruling should be raised in that same appellate cause number.
• Confirm compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.2(c) regarding notices of appeal in the same case.
• Frame appellate issues to explain why the confidentiality ruling is reviewable within the existing appeal.
• Ensure the clerk’s record includes the motion, response, ruling, and any supporting materials necessary to review the issue.
• Consider whether mandamus, rather than direct appeal, is the more appropriate vehicle in a particular procedural posture.

Drafting and Filing Sensitive Materials in Family Cases

• Decide in advance whether sensitive information can be omitted, summarized, or redacted.
• Use narrowly tailored protective orders where discovery materials contain confidential business, medical, or child-related information.
• Request in camera review where appropriate.
• Avoid unnecessarily attaching highly sensitive documents to routine motions or exhibits.
• Segment truly sensitive exhibits from public-facing filings when procedural rules allow.
• Coordinate with the district clerk on any available restricted-access procedures consistent with governing law.

Avoiding the Procedural Misstep Seen in Murillo

• Do not assume a denial of sealing in a divorce case is separately appealable as a final judgment.
• Check whether the trial-court cause number matches an already-pending appeal.
• Before filing a second notice of appeal, analyze whether it belongs in the existing appellate docket.
• Review Rule 76a, Rule 12.2(c), and any transfer orders affecting the pending appeal.
• If in doubt, file a motion in the court of appeals seeking clarification on docketing or jurisdiction.
• Protect the client’s position by timely presenting the issue in the live appeal instead of waiting on a potentially improper separate appeal.

Advising Clients About Confidentiality Expectations

• Explain that Family Code cases are not governed by Rule 76a’s general sealing mechanism for “court records.”
• Set realistic expectations about what can and cannot be kept out of the public file.
• Discuss confidentiality planning before filing tax returns, business records, mental-health records, or child-related materials.
• Build a record showing the specific privacy or safety interests at stake.
• Revisit confidentiality strategy at each procedural phase, including temporary orders, trial, and post-judgment proceedings.

Citation

In the Matter of the Marriage of Daniel Maurice Murillo and Lindsey Marie Murillo, No. 08-26-00311-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 2, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~5d023284-b31d-422a-95ff-b14803162e13~~