Robbie Lesa Hames Horton v. Kimberly A. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567

Robbie Horton and Kimberly Stovall executed a handwritten settlement agreement dividing real and personal property after an acrimonious split; Horton alleges she properly canceled the agreement for Stovall’s prior material breach.
The trial court granted Stovall partial summary judgment on breach, entered judgment on Horton’s declaratory-judgment counterclaim, and awarded attorney’s fees to Stovall; those interlocutory rulings became final after nonsuit and severance orders.
Horton appealed, challenging severance and three summary-judgment rulings (raising issues about material fact questions, presentment/damages for attorneys’ fees, and compulsory-counterclaim severance).
The court of appeals affirmed in a split decision, not on the merits, but because Horton’s brief cited documents in her appendix (and to wrong locations) rather than to the clerk’s record; the majority declined to let her correct the citations.
A dissenting justice located the same documents in the electronic clerk’s record, argued the citation errors were correctable, and urged the panel to decide on the merits or allow correction.
The Texas Supreme Court held the court of appeals abused its discretion by affirming on that non-merits ground without giving Horton a reasonable opportunity to cure citation defects under Tex. R. App. P. 38.9 and 44.3; it reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether citation errors (appendix vs clerk’s record) can justify affirmance without chance to correct	Horton: citation mistakes were formal and easily corrected; evidence was in the summary-judgment record	Stovall: Horton failed to cite the clerk’s record; court should not hunt for record evidence	Supreme Court: appellate court abused discretion; rules require reasonable opportunity to cure citation defects; remand for further proceedings
Whether summary judgment was improper on breach-of-contract (fact issues)	Horton: she presented evidence raising material fact issues, including cancellation	Stovall: no supporting evidence in the summary-judgment record (per majority)	Court remanded for merits consideration after citation defects are cured; did not resolve merits now
Whether attorney’s fees award met presentment/damages requirements	Horton: emails cited were insufficient for presentment; she failed to show damages	Stovall: presentment emails satisfied the requirement; fees supported by record	Remanded for merits review once citation/record issues are corrected
Whether severance of Horton’s counterclaim was improper (compulsory counterclaim)	Horton: counterclaim was compulsory and severance was improper	Stovall: counterclaim was pending in another suit, so severance complied with Tex. R. Civ. P. 97	Court did not decide on the merits; remanded for proper appellate consideration

Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2008) (appellate courts should reach the merits whenever reasonably possible)
Silk v. Terrill, 898 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. 1995) (technical appellate defects that can be easily corrected should not preclude merits review)
Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (appellate discretion to deem points waived or allow rebriefing depends on facts)
Inpetco, Inc. v. Tex. Am. Bank/Houston N.A., 729 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1987) (appellate court erred by affirming based on briefing inadequacies without ordering rebriefing)
Davis v. City of San Antonio, 752 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. 1988) (refusal to remand appropriate when party did not timely seek relief)
Willis v. Donnelly, 199 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2006) (parties should not lose appeal rights by unduly technical application of procedural rules)