Articles Posted in Divorce

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.

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.

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.

Continue Reading ›

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.

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.

Continue Reading ›

When dividing property in divorce proceedings, courts will distinguish between separate property and community property. Separate property represents any property or assets that one person has held since before they were married. Conversely, community property constitutes property or assets shared between spouses. Typically, only community property is subject to division among the former spouses. Texas courts presume that property either spouse possesses during marriage or upon the end of the marriage is community property. To overcome this presumption, a spouse must present clear and convincing evidence that they held the property separately. A recent decision from the Texas Supreme Court shows the importance of presenting adequate evidence of separate property to avoid division following a divorce.

Facts of the Case

As the Texas Supreme Court opinion explains, the Wife filed for divorce after 14 years of marriage. At trial, the Husband presented evidence that two investment accounts in his name existed before his marriage. Specifically, an expert witness testified that the Husband did not mix his accounts with community property. The expert further testified about a four-month gap in the investment statements he received. However, he concluded that the missing statements did not detract from the “established pattern of activity” over 15 years. Agreeing with the expert, the trial court found that the accounts were the Husband’s separate property, meaning they were not subject to division.

The Wife appealed, and the appeals court reversed. First, it found “no evidence” of what happened during those four months. Based on this gap in the record, it found that the Husband’s expert could not rely on an “established pattern” of account activity to adequately characterize accounts as separate property. Therefore, it reversed that portion of the trial court’s decision and sent the case back to divide the account balances. The Husband appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Continue Reading ›

Typically, divorce decrees award certain items of property to each spouse. The terms of a decree are final, but a court can enforce them after entering the decree. If one spouse fails to turn over property awarded to the other spouse, the court often must enforce the decree by requiring the spouse to transfer the property. In a recent Texas appeals court opinion, the court handled a petition to enforce a decree involving several items of personal property.

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the Husband appealed a trial court’s partial denial of his petition to enforce the parties’ divorce decree. The decree awarded the Husband patio furniture, dining room furniture, and bronze statues from the marital home. The dispute arose when the Husband sought to recover the furniture, which he claimed was still in the Wife’s possession. At the trial court hearing, the Husband presented evidence of a check he wrote for the patio furniture and photographs of the furniture. The Wife admitted she took some outdoor furniture from their marital home, but she explained that it was not the Husband’s patio furniture but rather items she received before their marriage. In support, the court-appointed receiver testified that the Wife delivered the patio furniture to the Husband and kept her separate outdoor furniture. The Wife then confirmed she never returned the dining room furniture because she had sold it. The Wife also testified that she had not handed over the statues. The trial court granted the Husband’s petition with respect to the bronze statues but denied it with respect to the patio and dining room furniture.

On appeal, the Husband argued that the trial court abused its discretion by partially denying his petition for clarification and enforcement regarding the furniture. The appeals court upheld the district court’s decision with respect to the patio furniture. As the court explained, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the Wife no longer possessed it. The appeals court cited the Wife’s testimony that the other outdoor furniture was her separate property. They also credited the receiver’s testimony that the Wife returned the Husband’s patio furniture. However, the appeals court found that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the dining room furniture. According to the court, there was insufficient evidence that the Wife returned the furniture. In fact, the Wife admitted she possessed the furniture before ultimately selling it. Therefore, the appeals court partially affirmed and partially reversed, sending the case back to the district court to enforce the decree.