Dallas Divorce Lawyer Blog

How Texas Courts Address Claims of Inherited Property in a Divorce

October 30, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In Texas, when couples go through a divorce, the court’s goal is to divide marital property in a way that is fair, but not always equal. This is known as “equitable distribution.” If a prenuptial agreement exists, the terms of that agreement will typically guide how the property is divided. However, without such an agreement, Texas state law applies. One important distinction in this process is the difference between community property, which can be divided, and separate property, which cannot. In general, property acquired during the marriage is considered community property, while inheritances are treated as separate property. However, complications can arise if inherited assets are commingled with marital assets.

Recently, a Texas appellate court ruled on a case involving disputed property, including a home and a truck. The husband in the case argued that both the home and the truck should be considered his separate property because they were purchased with money he inherited from his mother. The wife, however, argued that the assets were community property since her name was also listed on the deed and title.

The facts of the case show that after the husband’s mother passed away, he inherited a large sum of money. He used this money to purchase a home and a truck, both of which were put in both his and his wife’s names. While the wife’s name was added to the titles, the husband claimed that he never intended to make these assets community property or to gift any portion to his wife. The dispute over these assets became a key issue in their divorce, ultimately leading to an appeal after the trial court sided with the husband.

When Not to Appeal a Texas Divorce Ruling

September 15, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Divorce and family law cases are some of the most emotionally charged legal matters individuals can face. People often find themselves making decisions based on emotion rather than logic, which can complicate the already challenging process. In some cases, individuals approach litigation not necessarily to resolve issues but as a form of battle in itself, making the entire process more difficult for everyone involved. A recent Texas Court of Appeals case highlights how irrational behavior can prolong a divorce and lead to unnecessary financial strain, even when the outcome initially seems favorable.

The case in question involved a divorcing wife who contested a divorce ruling that awarded her over 100% of the marital assets. At first glance, this might seem like a generous outcome, but the case’s history is a cautionary tale about how litigation tactics and delays can turn what should be a resolution into a long and drawn-out battle. The wife in this case had difficulty keeping attorneys on her side, which contributed to her missing several key deadlines and procedural requirements. Throughout the course of the litigation, she went through over 20 attorneys, making it nearly impossible to maintain a cohesive strategy or adequately address the legal issues at hand.

At the center of the divorce were complex questions of property division, including the valuation of separate and community assets. The wife pursued a lengthy discovery process, requesting financial records going back to the couple’s marriage in 1994. The court ultimately limited discovery to financial records starting in 2015, deeming the earlier requests excessive without specific justification. Despite the opportunity to seek discovery for specific transactions before 2015, the wife failed to follow through on this option. This kind of mismanagement of legal procedures contributed to the long delays in her case.

Texas Court of Appeals Enforces Mediated Divorce Settlement, Rejecting Claims of Fraudulent Inducement

August 31, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In Texas, property division during a divorce is intended to be fair and equitable, though not necessarily equal. The court has the responsibility to decide what constitutes an equitable division of assets based on the evidence presented by both parties. It is important to note that in many cases, the parties may choose to settle their disputes through mediation, reaching an agreement on how to divide their property without needing the court to intervene. While mediated agreements are legally enforceable, they may not always be fair or equitable, particularly if one party lacks adequate legal representation or is pressured into agreeing to unfavorable terms.

Recently, the Texas Court of Appeals addressed a case where a man challenged a divorce settlement that had been finalized years earlier. In this case, the man and his spouse had been married for several years and owned a house together. During the marriage, the man signed a quitclaim deed, transferring his interest in the property to his spouse. When the couple decided to divorce, they entered into a mediated settlement agreement that included the division of their marital assets. According to the agreement, the house was listed as the spouse’s separate property, and the man agreed to this arrangement as part of the overall settlement.

The trial court subsequently signed an agreed final decree of divorce that confirmed the house as the spouse’s separate property. Both parties signed the decree, agreeing to its terms. Years later, the man filed a petition for a bill of review, seeking to overturn the prior agreement. He alleged that his spouse had fraudulently induced him to sign the quitclaim deed by presenting it as a document needed for mortgage purposes, without explaining that it would transfer his interest in the property to her. He further argued that he had relied on the advice of his counsel during the mediation, which led him to sign the agreement without fully understanding its implications.

Texas Court Declines to Exercise Jurisdiction over Divorce Case with Allegations of Domestic Abuse

August 12, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In family law, jurisdiction is divided into two types: subject matter jurisdiction, which refers to the court’s ability to hear specific types of cases, and personal jurisdiction, which concerns the court’s authority over the individuals involved in the case. For a court to hear a divorce case, it must have personal jurisdiction over the parties, which typically requires that the individuals live within the court’s geographic boundaries or have a significant connection to the area. However, in divorce cases, it’s possible for multiple courts to have jurisdiction. For instance, if the spouses live in different states, both states might have the authority to hear the divorce case.

In such scenarios, the courts should communicate with each other to decide which court will proceed, following guidelines established by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). This ensures that the case is handled in the most appropriate jurisdiction and avoids conflicting rulings.

A recent decision by a Texas appellate court underscores the importance of jurisdiction in divorce cases. In this case, the husband initially filed for divorce in Texas, believing that the state had jurisdiction. However, after the filing, the wife moved to Utah and initiated divorce proceedings there. She argued that Utah was the more suitable forum for the case, and ultimately, the Texas court agreed, declining jurisdiction and allowing the case to proceed in Utah.

Texas Court of Appeals Partially Overturns Divorce Decree Over Retroactive Child Support Award

July 30, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case from the Court of Appeals of Texas, a husband appealed the divorce decree following a bench trial that dissolved his marriage and awarded conservatorship and possession of the parties’ child to the wife. The decree also granted the wife $132,000 in damages for claims of civil assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the husband. On appeal, the husband challenged the trial court’s findings of family violence, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the awards for exemplary damages, retroactive child support, and attorney’s fees. The appellate court upheld the majority of the trial court’s decisions but found an error in the award of a money judgment for retroactive child support.

Importance of Proper Child Support Awards in Texas

In Texas, child support awards are governed by specific statutes within the Family Code. In this case, the trial court erred by awarding a monetary judgment for retroactive child support on top of the retroactive child support already granted in the decree. According to the Texas Family Code, Chapter 157 governs child-support enforcement proceedings and authorizes money judgments for unpaid child support. However, Chapter 154, cited in this case, authorizes money judgments only in limited circumstances, such as when the child-support obligor has died. The appellate court found that nothing in the record suggested the wife sought retroactive child support via a Chapter 157 enforcement proceeding, making the award of a money judgment for retroactive child support improper.

Texas Court Affirms Divorce Decree Despite Wife’s Challenges on Appeal

July 18, 2024 | by Robert Guest

A recent ruling by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s final divorce decree in favor of the husband. The case, originating from the 247th District Court in Harris County, Texas, involved a contentious appeal by the wife. She raised several issues, most notably challenging the husband’s expert witness. The wife argued that the expert, who valued the husband’s counseling business, had a conflict of interest and lacked the necessary qualifications. However, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

The Importance of Legal Representation in Family Court

Divorce cases often involve complex financial issues and expert testimonies. In such situations, having a family court attorney is vital. An attorney ensures that legal procedures are followed, advocates for their client’s interests, and helps present a compelling case.

Obstacles to Obtaining Protective Orders in Texas against Out-of-State Residents

June 30, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Both State and Federal laws apply to the procedures for courts to issue and enforce domestic protective orders that can be issued to prevent a respondent from contacting, threatening, or harassing the petitioner after certain allegations are proven to an acceptable degree. Although federal laws that apply to protective order respondents are enforceable from coast to coast, the existence of a protective order in one state may not be sufficient for a similar order to enter in another state. The Texas Supreme Court recently published an opinion that declined a Texas woman’s request to enter a protective order against her ex-lover, who resided in Massachusetts.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the Petitioner had been granted a protective order in Massachusetts after the Respondent made credible threats of abuse and violence. After moving to Texas, she requested a Texas district court enter a similar order to protect her from the Respondent while under Texas jurisdiction. The Respondent argued that the Texas court had no jurisdiction over him to enter such an order, and after conflicting rulings, the appeal made its way to the highest civil court in Texas. The Court emphasized that for Texas courts to assert personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have “minimum contacts’ with Texas that are purposeful and not merely random or incidental. This ensures that the defendant has availed themselves of the privileges of conducting activities within Texas, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. In this case, the Respondent, a Massachusetts resident, had no contacts with Texas related to the Petitioner’s allegations, which all occurred in Massachusetts. The absence of such contacts made it clear that Texas could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the Respondent, highlighting the necessity for jurisdictional connections to the forum state in matters involving protective orders.

The opinion helps demonstrate the importance of understanding and adhering to jurisdictional requirements when dealing with cases of domestic violence and protective orders. The court’s decision to vacate the protective order due to lack of personal jurisdiction demonstrates that even serious allegations of domestic abuse must meet specific legal criteria related to the court’s power to adjudicate. It also illustrates the procedural protections afforded to individuals who are not residents of the forum state, ensuring that they are not subjected to legal proceedings in a state with which they have no meaningful connection. This reinforces the need for precise legal navigation when pursuing protective orders across state lines, as failing to meet jurisdictional standards can result in the dismissal of the case.

Judicial Discretion in Awarding Attorney’s Fees in Texas Divorce Cases

June 12, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Divorce proceedings in Texas can quickly become costly, especially when both parties hire attorneys to navigate the complex process. The total legal expenses can escalate significantly, particularly in cases where financial disparities exist between the spouses. In such scenarios, one spouse might need to enlist forensic investigators as part of their legal team to accurately assess and claim their fair share of the marital estate.

When there is a substantial imbalance in the legal fees incurred by each party, the court may intervene and order the wealthier spouse to cover a portion of the other’s legal expenses. This measure ensures a fairer financial footing for both parties during the divorce. A recent ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals highlights a situation where the court deemed it appropriate to award attorney’s fees as part of the divorce settlement.

In divorce proceedings, the court has the discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees if it deems them necessary and justified. The party requesting the fees must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the fees are reasonable and necessary. This can include detailed records of the hours spent on the case, the nature of the legal work, the complexity of the issues involved, the attorney’s experience, and the prevailing hourly rates in the local legal community. The court then evaluates this evidence to determine if the fees align with what is customary for similar services in the area.

Texas Appeals Court Partially Reverses Parental Rights Termination

May 31, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Terminating a person’s parental rights is a serious consequence. In Texas, a trial court must find clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights. To meet this high standard of proof, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) will introduce evidence that termination is in a child’s best interests. However, if the Department fails to offer clear and convincing evidence, the court cannot terminate the parent’s rights. A recent Texas appellate case demonstrates the high burden of proof courts require to terminate parental rights.

Facts of the Case

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services first removed the Mother’s children from her care when the Department found them living in a U-Haul, and the Mother admitted to recently using methamphetamine. The Department placed the children with their Father, who gave the Department misleading information about their care. The Father left one child with their adult sibling, even though the Department told him not to because the sibling used drugs. The child was later found walking alone on the highway, and the Father tested positive for illegal substances. The Department then sought to terminate both parents’ rights. At the termination hearing, the caseworker testified that the Mother did not participate in a service plan to reunite with her children. She further testified that the children were exposed to drugs while in their Father’s care. The Father was also convicted of child endangerment during the case and received an eight-year sentence. The trial court terminated the Mother and Father’s parental rights. The Mother and Father appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the Mother and Father both argued there was insufficient evidence to terminate their rights. The appeals court agreed with the Mother, reversing the trial court’s decision. First, the court noted that the Department did not submit the service plan into evidence and did not specify the services the Mother had to undertake. In Texas, to terminate parental rights due to a failure to comply with a service plan, the plan must establish the specific actions necessary for reunification. Because there was no evidence of the service plan, the trial court could not have considered whether it was sufficiently specific. The court further found that the trial court should not have terminated the Mother’s parental rights based on her drug use. The Department had to prove that the parent both used a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the child’s safety and failed to complete a court-ordered substance treatment program or relapsed after completing the program. Here, the appeals court found no evidence that the Department ordered the Mother to complete a drug treatment program. The court thus reversed the trial court’s decision to terminate the Mother’s parental rights.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Property Division and Joint Conservatorship Ruling

May 21, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In a typical divorce proceeding, property division and child custody will likely be two main issues among the parties. In Texas, property owned by one spouse before the marriage is usually not subject to division. However, if the other spouse increased the property’s value through specific contributions, that spouse may be entitled to the fair market value of the improvements to the property. Importantly, the spouse’s contributions must have a causal relationship to any appreciation in market value; passive appreciations in value will not suffice. A recent Texas appellate decision demonstrates how courts award property when one spouse claims to have improved another spouse’s separate property acquired before the marriage. The case also addresses joint conservatorship of a couple’s minor children, which many courts also refer to as joint custody.

Facts of the Case

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the Mother and Father were married for eight years and had two minor children. The Mother filed for divorce, and a trial took place before a judge. The evidence focused on real property the Mother had purchased prior to the marriage. The Father had completed renovations to the property during their marriage. The trial also focused on the Mother’s retirement account, which she opened before the marriage but received contributions during the marriage. The trial court appointed both parents as joint managing conservators of their children, awarding the Mother the right to establish the children’s primary residence. The court also denied the Father’s reimbursement claims for funds he expended to improve the Mother’s property. Finally, the court awarded 100% of the disputed property and the retirement account to the Mother. The Father appealed.

The Decision

First, the appeals court affirmed the decision to appoint the Mother as joint managing conservator with the right to establish the children’s residence. The Father attempted to present evidence that the children suffered frequent injuries and illnesses while in the Mother’s care, including a broken arm and various bruises. However, the trial court heard testimony establishing that their son broke his arm at school and not in his Mother’s care. Additionally, because the trial court had photographic evidence of the bruises, it was in the best position to credit the Mother’s testimony that they were minor injuries incidental to the children’s daily activities. Finally, while the Father claimed the Mother failed to seek adequate medical treatment and underfed the children, the children’s pediatrician opined that there was no evidence of neglect and that the Father seemed preoccupied with gathering evidence against the Mother. Therefore, the appeals court rejected the Father’s arguments on this issue.