Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Appeals Court Vacates Appointment of Receiver as Improper Modification of Property Division

Published on: October 27, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

A trial court may not amend, modify, alter or change the substantive property division in a divorce decree after expiration of its plenary power. The court retains jurisdiction, however, to enforce or clarify the property division in the divorce decree. A former husband recently appealed a trial court’s appointment of a receiver for the marital residence, arguing it constituted an improper modification of the property division set forth in the divorce decree.

Divorce Proceedings

The parties got married in 2009 and separated in October 2020, according to the appeals court’s opinion. The wife petitioned for divorce in November 2020, and the husband filed a counterpetition. In its written ruling, the trial court indicated the marital home would be sold with the proceeds equally divided. The ruling stated the husband was allowed to stay in the house until the sale.

No Violation of Due Process Based on Emails with the Court after Texas Divorce Trial

Published on: October 20, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

Both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Constitution prohibit the state from depriving a person of a liberty interest without due process of law. Case law has established that parental rights are fundamental liberty interests. Due process generally requires that a person be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. A mother recently appealed her divorce decree, arguing she was deprived of her due process when the court accepted evidence after trial but before entering the final decree.

According to the appeals court, the child was born in March 2020 and the father filed for divorce the following August. In its ruling, the trial court named the parties joint managing conservators and awarded the father the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within two counties. The final decree divided the marital estate, awarding the father $104,738.93 and the mother $69,825.95 from the sale of the home.

Due Process Claims

The mother appealed, arguing the trial court violated her due process rights by accepting certain evidence after the trial.

Texas Enforcement Order Reversed Due to Due Process Issues at Hearing

Published on: October 13, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

A trial court in a Texas divorce case has discretion in how the trial is conducted, but that discretion is not unlimited. In a recent case, the appeals court determined the trial court abused its discretion by imposing time restrictions that allowed the husband more time to present the case than it allowed the wife and by refusing the wife’s request to present an offer of proof.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the divorce decree awarded the wife the marital residence; the entire community interest in a business; three of the business’s bank accounts, with the husband receiving half of the funds in them; and the household furniture and other personal property in her possession or control. The husband was awarded 50% of the equity in the house; certain assets from the business; the furniture and other personal property in his possession or control; and 50% of the business’s accounts receivable.

Enforcement Hearing

The husband filed a motion asking the court to enforce the property division by contempt.

Texas Court May Clarify Ambiguous Property Division

Published on: October 6, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

Once its plenary power has expired, a trial court cannot change the substantive property division stated in a final Texas divorce decree. It does, however, retain the power to clarify or enforce that property division. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) is a post-divorce enforcement order and therefore cannot change the property division. A QDRO can, however, specify how the property division can be carried out, without altering the substantive property division. If the QDRO substantively alters the property division, then it is void and may be amended to comport with the division in the decree. A wife recently challenged a clarification order addressing the division of the husband’s 401(k).

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties executed a mediated settlement agreement (“MSA”) that incorporated a spreadsheet dividing the marital estate. That spreadsheet indicated the parties would each receive half of $92,916.50 from the 401(k).

The final decree incorporated the MSA by reference and ordered the parties “to do all things necessary to effectuate” it. The decree awarded the husband the entire balance of the 401(k) “as reflected on [the spreadsheet]” except for the part awarded to the wife by the decree.

Court Has Broad Discretion in Determining Texas Custody

Published on: September 29, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

The court’s primary consideration in determining Texas custody is the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.002. There is a rebuttable presumption that the parents being named joint managing conservators is in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131. When a court names parents joint managing conservators, it must also designate which of them has the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence. Custody matters are highly fact-based, and the court generally has broad discretion in determining the child’s best interest and deciding who will have the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence. A father recently challenged the custody, child support, and property division in his divorce.

Custody

The parties separated after fourteen years of marriage. They had two children together. The trial court named both parents joint managing conservators with the mother having the exclusive rights to designate the children’s primary residence, receive child support, and make educational decisions.

According to the appeals court, the record showed that one of the children said she would “rather stay with mom.” The mother testified she had been the parent who took care of the children when they were sick, took them to medical appointments, prepared food, helped with homework, and put them to bed. She testified she thought it was in the children’s best interest to live with her. She alleged the father drank too much around the children.

Texas Spousal Maintenance

Published on: September 25, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

Pursuant to Texas Fam. Code § 8.051, the court may award Texas spousal maintenance to a spouse who lacks sufficient resources to provide for their own minimum reasonable needs if the other spouse was convicted of or received deferred adjudication for a criminal offense that constituted an act of family violence against the spouse or the spouse’s child and the offense occurred within two years before the divorce case was filed or while it was pending. Additionally, the court may award maintenance to a spouse who lacks sufficient resources to provide for their own minimum needs if they: are unable to earn sufficient income to provide for their minimum reasonable needs due to an incapacitating disability; lack the ability to earn sufficient income after being married to the other spouse for at least 10 years; or are the custodian of the parties’ child with a disability who requires substantial care and supervision that prevents the custodial parent from earning sufficient income. A husband recently appealed a spousal maintenance award, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the wife was eligible for maintenance.

Wife Seeks Spousal Maintenance

The husband petitioned for divorce after seven years of marriage, alleging insupportability. He requested the court to appoint the parties joint managing conservators of their child.

The wife also alleged the marriage was insupportable, but also alleged cruel treatment and “a history or pattern of committing family violence” by the husband. She alleged she would not have adequate resources to meet her minimum reasonable needs and sought spousal maintenance. She claimed she was eligible to receive spousal maintenance as a result of “domestic violence.”

Texas Fit Parent Presumption Not Applicable in Certain Modification Proceedings

Published on: September 20, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

Texas family law has a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interest for the parents to be appointed joint managing conservators. Additionally, generally a parent must be named sole managing conservator or both parents named joint managing conservators unless there is a finding such appointment would not be in the child’s best interest because it would significantly impair the health or emotional development of the child. Tex. Fam. Code 153.131.

A maternal great-grandmother recently appealed a modification appointing the father sole managing conservator.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parents’ divorce decree in 2016 had named the mother sole managing conservator and the father possessory conservator. A subsequent order appointed both parents temporary joint managing conservators, but gave the great-grandmother sole possession. A subsequent order in 2019 named the mother and great-grandmother joint managing conservators with the great-grandmother having the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. The order stated the father had failed to appear at trial and defaulted. He was appointed possessory conservator.

Texas Appeals Court Concludes Stock Issued by Husband’s Employer Was Community Property

Published on: September 19, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

There is a presumption that property possessed by a spouse during or on Texas marital dissolution is community property. A party claiming separate property must prove its separate character by clear and convincing evidence. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003. In a recent case a wife appealed the trial court’s characterization of stock shares granted to the husband by his employer.

Stock Shares

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got married in December 2006. The husband started a new job in February 2015 and the next year received a million shares of the company’s stock. The husband stated he had entered into an agreement with the company when he received the stock, but could not find it and could not get a copy from the company. The stock certificates did not indicate why they were issued.

The husband’s employment contract provided that he would receive an annual salary of $100,000. Additionally, he would receive a signing fee, an additional payment upon the next fundraising event, and an annual payment for four years, as compensation for “assets, access to ‘[husband’s] IP,’ and inventory” the husband provided pursuant to the employment agreement. The company also agreed to take on certain debts and liabilities the husband owed. The contract indicated the husband would receive “a total compensation of over $750,000” for the use of the husband’s assets and intellectual property, without referencing the stock shares.

Texas Court Denies Child Support Modification Based on Father’s Alleged Change in Income

Published on: September 10, 2023 | by Kate Mataya

A trial court may modify a Texas child support order if there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the rendition of the prior order. The party seeking the modification has the burden of establishing the change in circumstances. The court may also modify an order if it has been at least three years since the prior order was rendered or modified and the order varies by 20% or $100 from the guidelines. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.401(a). As with many issues involving child custody or support, the court’s primary consideration should be the child’s best interest. A father recently appealed a court’s denial of his request to modify his child support obligation due to a change in income.

Petition for Modification

According to the appeals court, the father’s monthly child support obligation under a 2015 agreed order in a modification suit was $1,231.78 and his monthly medical support obligation was $105. There were no findings as to the father’s net resources or any indication in the order that the child support was based on the guidelines.

The father petitioned for modification in October 2021, alleging a material and substantial change in his circumstances based on his income. He requested a decrease in his child support obligation. The mother argued that the previous modification agreement had not been based on the child support guidelines. She further argued that a change in the father’s income did not constitute a material and substantial change in circumstances because there was no indication the parties had relied on the father’s income in setting the child support obligation in the agreed order.

Characterization of Personal Injury Recovery in Texas Divorce

Published on: September 4, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

The characterization of funds received for personal injuries can be a complex issue in a Texas divorce. Texas family law presumes that property possessed by a spouse during or on dissolution of the marriage is community property. When a spouse claims certain property is separate, that spouse must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property is separate. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003. Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 3.001, recovery for personal injuries sustained during the marriage is separate property. There is an exception, however, for recovery for lost earning capacity during the marriage. Because a spouse claiming separate property has the burden of proof, that spouse must show by clear and convincing evidence what part of a personal injury settlement is separate property. Recently, a husband appealed the trial court’s ruling which characterized his personal injury recovery as community property.

Personal Injury Settlement

According to the appeals court, the husband and wife married in 1994 and lived separately at various times during the marriage. In December 2014, husband was injured as the result of an automobile accident in the scope of his employment. The parties were separated when the accident occurred, but subsequently reconciled.

The husband settled for the other driver’s policy limits of $30,000. He also received net proceeds of $710,724.25 from a settlement with his employer’s under-insured motorist coverage. Thereafter, his attorneys transferred those funds into the parties’ joint checking account on October 8, 2019. The parties then separated that month and the wife filed a divorce petition on November 1.