Divorce

Texas Court Sides with Mother in Custody Dispute Demonstrating the Importance of Child Interview Statute

July 10, 2023 | by Robert Guest

In a June 2023 case before the Texas Supreme Court, a mother appealed the trial court’s decision that allowed her children’s father to have the exclusive authority to decide where their four children should live. According to the mother, the judge had unfairly denied her request to have her 13-year-old child interviewed in the judge’s chambers, which ultimately resulted in an incorrect verdict. Looking at the record of the case, the higher court agreed with the mother and remanded part of the case in accordance with her request.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the father, in this case, filed for divorce, and he asked the court to make a custody decision for the couple’s four children. In Texas, Section 153.009(a) of the Family Code allows parents to request that judges interview their children privately in chambers to take their wishes into account when making a cursory decision. If a parent requests this interview, however, he or she waives the right to a jury trial and is only able to proceed under a non-jury or a bench trial.

Early on in this case, the mother requested an interview between the judge and her 13-year-old child. By conducting the interview, said the mother, the judge would be able to understand that her children preferred to reside with her. To request the interview, the mother emailed the court, called the court 20 times, made an oral request on the record during the hearing, and filed two briefs after trial. The court, however, did not interview the child, and it also failed to offer the mother a jury trial in the absence of granting her request.

Texas Court Reverses $5000 Monthly Spousal Support Ruling

June 30, 2023 | by Robert Guest

Texas law permits family courts to order one party to a marriage to pay spousal support, also known as alimony, to the other party under certain circumstances. In Texas, there is a statutory presumption to deny requests for spousal support, however, a divorcing spouse may be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to spousal support if certain conditions are met. The Texas Court of Appeal recently reversed a family court ruling that had awarded a woman the sum of $5000 per month in spousal support.

The parties in the recently decided appeal had been married for over 20 years when the husband filed for divorce in 2018. As part of the divorce proceeding, the wife requested that the family court grant her spousal support in order to help her support herself and the extensive bills that were owed to support the standard of living that was enjoyed during the marriage. In addition to the needs-based request, the wife argued that she was entitled to spousal support because the husband was unfaithful leading up to the parties’ divorce.

At trial, the family court judge accepted testimony that the wife had approximately $11,000 in monthly expenses and found that an award of $5000 per month in spousal support was appropriate considering the circumstances. The trial court considered the husband’s infidelity in issuing the spousal support award. The husband appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the wife needed to demonstrate that she needed the funds to support her minimum reasonable needs and that she was capable of supporting those needs without the spousal support award.

Texas Appellate Court Affirms Spousal Maintenance Award

June 14, 2023 | by Robert Guest

In the event of a divorce, it is extremely common for each of the parties to have differing income-earning abilities during and after the divorce process. Often, one of the divorcing parents had stopped working full time during a marriage in order to care for children or otherwise maintain a household. In order to compensate for the value of the labor that a stay-at-home spouse has contributed to marriage and household, Texas courts regularly award spousal maintenance (commonly referred to as alimony) in order to equalize the parties’ standards of living and income-earning abilities. The Court of Appeals of Texas recently affirmed a family court’s ruling that granted alimony to the ex-wife while rejecting the ex-husband’s arguments that the alimony award was improper.

The parties from the recently decided case were married in 2007 and separated in 2020. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the husband had at least 2 affairs and fathered a child with another woman during the marriage to his wife. As part of her divorce claim, the woman requested both temporary spousal support to help her while the divorce moved along, as well as a spousal maintenance award to assist her with supporting herself and developing employment skills which she had put on hold during the marriage. In order to award long-term spousal support, Texas law requires parties to have been married for at least 10 years and also requires a finding that the beneficiary spouse lacked adequate property and income-earning ability to provide for their basic needs.

At trial, the court accepted the evidence as to the parties earning abilities and assets and divided the marital estate equitably. In addition to the division of property, the court awarded the woman spousal support in the amount of $250 per month for a period of eighteen months. Although the woman testified that she was able to pay her bills without the support, the court found that this admission was made only because the woman was on federal food stamp assistance and needed to borrow money from her family several times to make ends meet. Based on the woman’s testimony that she was able to pay her bills, the man appealed the trial court’s alimony award, arguing that she had adequate property and income-earning ability to survive without the support.

Ex-Husband in Divorce Case Challenges Trial Court’s Ruling on Marital Credit Card Debt

May 31, 2023 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case before an appeals court in Texas, the plaintiff in a divorce case asked for a new decision regarding the credit card debt that the lower court directed him to pay. Originally, the lower court issued an order divorcing the plaintiff and defendant, and part of that decision decided that both parties were responsible for the debt accrued during the marriage. On appeal, the plaintiff took issue with this ruling, but the higher court ultimately kept the lower court’s decision in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the decision, the plaintiff and defendant in this case separated in early 2020, and the husband filed for divorce about a month later. While working out the issues in their divorce, the parties were able to agree over certain matters, such as custody of their three kids. They were unable to agree, however, on how to divide the credit card debt that they had accrued during their marriage. They thus took the case to trial and asked the court to decide who was responsible for paying off this debt.

After trial, the court decided that the husband, the plaintiff, would be responsible for 60% of the debt, while the defendant, the wife, would be responsible for the other 40%. Disagreeing with the court’s ruling, the plaintiff appealed.

Texas Court Dismisses Parties’ Divorce Case as Moot, Despite Initial Jurisdictional Questions

April 22, 2023 | by Robert Guest

In a recent memorandum opinion issued by a district court in Texas, the court dismissed one party’s claim because it decided there were no longer any issues to litigate in the state. Originally, a couple trying to get divorced filed claims in both Texas and Virginia and there was some confusion over where the divorce case should be heard. By the time the court of appeals issued its opinion, however, the couple had resolved all of the necessary issues about jurisdiction, and the Texas court dismissed the husband’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the wife involved in this case first filed for divorce from her husband in Virginia in 2018. Later, she dropped the suit entirely, only for the husband to re-file for divorce three years later in Texas. At that point, it was unclear whether the divorce proceedings should take place in Virginia or Texas.

In the husband’s petition for divorce, he stated that he had been a resident of Texas for six months prior to filing for divorce. This was relevant for the court to know since a Texas divorce case can be filed in the county court where one of the parties has lived for the last 90 days as long as that party has also lived in Texas for at least six months.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Decision in Marriage Dispute

April 6, 2023 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case involving a final decree of divorce between the appellant, Tomecia L. Wright, and the appellee, De Joran R. Wright, the appellate court affirmed the trial court decision. The parties married in December 2012 and have one daughter.

Facts of the Case

The couple resided in Dalhart, where De Joran was a coach and teacher for the school district. Four years later, they separated. Tomecia, who was unemployed at the time, left and took their child to Houston, ostensibly for vacation. De Joran contacted her seeking to help her find employment, at which point she refused to return to Dalhart, and he initiated divorce proceedings. She avoided service for several months, preventing De Joran from visiting his daughter for approximately six months, eventually filing a counterpetition for divorce. Shortly thereafter, the trial court held a hearing and issued temporary orders and a writ of attachment for the child to be returned to De Joran.

Establishing an Informal “Common-Law” Same-Sex Marriage in Texas

March 21, 2023 | by Robert Guest

Texas Couples who live together for a significant amount of time often share a relationship that functions and appears like an official marriage. This is especially true when the couple has been raising children together. Texas law, like many U.S. jurisdictions, allows for an informal marriage (colloquially known as a “common-law” marriage) to be entered into for a couple to enjoy the privileges, obligations, and protections of marriage. The application of Texas’s informal marriage statute is not completely clear with regard to same-sex couples seeking spousal benefits, divorce, or custody determination by a state court. One member of a same-sex couple was recently denied an appeal for her divorce petition against her former partner, as the Texas court ruled that the requirements for an informal marriage were not met in this case.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a woman who was in a relationship with the defendant for approximately 8 years. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant gave birth to two children throughout the parties’ relationship, and the couple raised the children together as a family unit. After the couple broke up, the plaintiff sued the defendant for divorce, alleging the parties had a valid informal marriage and seeking a division of property, as well as shared custody of the children. The district judge dismissed the plaintiff’s petition, finding that the parties were not married and she had no standing to sue the defendant.

Texas law allows for a valid informal marriage under two sets of circumstances. First, a couple can file a declaration with the county clerk of the county of their residence, stating that they intend to enter into an informal marriage. Second, an informal marriage can be established if (1) the couple agreed to be married; (2) after the agreement, they lived together in Texas as husband and wife; and (3) in Texas, they represented to others that they were married. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that there was evidence to support all three of the second set of factors for establishing an informal marriage.

Former Texas Spouse Awarded Military Pension that Accrued for 25 Years After a Divorce

January 22, 2023 | by Robert Guest

Texas family courts often award one party to a divorce a share of the other party’s retirement income or pension that accrued during the marriage. This method of property division ensures that a nonworking or lower-earning spouse is compensated for their efforts in the marriage when acting as a stay-at-home spouse or parent. Generally, the obligee spouse is only awarded retirement income that was accrued during a marriage, however, Texas courts can and do award proceeds from retirement or pension accounts that were earned by the other spouse after a divorce.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court ruling that had reduced an ex-husband’s obligation to pay his wife a share of his military pension that he accrued during 19 years of military service after the parties’ divorce was finalized. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the parties were married in 1977, and a divorce trial was held in 1996. As part of the final divorce order, the wife was awarded 50% of the husband’s military pension once it was received. Because the husband continued to serve in the military after the divorce was finalized, he did not receive any pension until after his retirement in 2015. After the husband’s retirement, the wife demanded that he pay her 50% of the pension payments pursuant to the 1996 divorce decree.

The husband refused to pay 50% of his total pension award, claiming that he only owed her 50% of the pension amount that accrued during the marriage. The husband made a motion with the court that entered the divorce decree, seeking a clarifying order that the wife was not entitled to 50% of the total pension amount. The trial court accepted the husband’s arguments, ultimately awarding over $115,000 in disputed funds to the husband. The wife appealed the ruling to the Texas Court of Appeals, arguing that the decree of divorce clearly stated that she was entitled to 50% of the pension once it was received, and this order did not limit the award to funds accrued only during the marriage.

In Texas, Spousal Support Is Not Necessarily Reserved for High-Asset Divorces

January 11, 2023 | by Robert Guest

Texas courts are entitled to award spousal support (also referred to as alimony) for a variety of reasons. Commonly, spousal support awards are considered in divorces with significant assets or when one party has a substantial earning ability. The most common factor considered when awarding spousal support is the court’s desire to allow the lower-earning spouse to maintain a standard of living similar to that enjoyed by the parties when they were married. Texas law also allows spousal support to be awarded in other circumstances. Alimony can be awarded in the event that one spouse has an injury or disability that would prevent them from earning enough to support their basic needs after the divorce. The Texas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s decision awarding spousal support to a disabled woman whose current and future earning ability was reduced based on her disability.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the couple married in 1987 and were married for 30 years before the husband filed for divorce. There were no children from the marriage, so the divorce proceeding was centered on dividing the parties’ marital estate and the wife’s request for spousal support. According to the opinion, the couple did not share an extremely valuable marital estate, and each party earned less than $50,000 per year in annual gross income. The husband earned approximately 33% more per hour than the wife working as a heavy equipment operator. At trial, the wife was awarded spousal support in the amount of $450 per month from the husband for a period of 5 years following the divorce. The court found that the wife suffered from a disability that reduced her ability to work, and which would likely worsen with time, further preventing her from supporting her short-term needs after the divorce.

The husband appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, arguing that the wife did not sufficiently prove that she was disabled and that her earnings ability was insufficient to support her short-term needs. Specifically, the husband argued that the wife received other assets in the divorce that she could liquidate if she needed to support herself after the divorce. The appellate court rejected the husband’s arguments, finding that the wife used the testimony of a credible medical expert to establish her disability and that the lower court’s decisions concerning spousal support were supported by the facts of the case and relevant Texas law. As a result of the appellate decision, the husband will be required to pay the spousal support in full unless other conditions are met which would remove his obligation.

Texas Court of Appeals Partially Reverses and Modifies Trial Court Decision in Child Support Case

November 30, 2022 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case involving the recalculation of child support payments and the custody arrangement between two parents, a Texas Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court decision, holding that the mother was entitled to be awarded a larger sum of monthly child support from the father, and reversing and remanding the issue of conservatorship and custody back to the trial court. An agreed order regarding the two minor children was entered into by the mother and father on June 22, 2017. In the agreed order, the and the father were named joint managing conservators, and the father was ordered to pay $620 per month in child support.

In January 2020, the father filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship, contending that circumstances had materially and substantially changed. The mother filed a counter-petition, requesting that the father’s monthly child support payments be recalculated and that the agreement be modified to appoint the mother the sole managing conservator of the children.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the father failed to appear in court for a hearing in April 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court announced that it was denying both the mother’s and the father’s requested modifications to conservatorship. Additionally, the trial court ruled that the monthly child support payments would increase from $620 per month to $1,700 per month by the father. The trial court listed the following findings and conclusions regarding the case.