Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
A Texas property division must be “just and right,” but that does not necessarily mean equal. A court may consider a party’s fault in the division when determining how to divide the property, but it may not use the property division to punish the at-fault spouse. A former husband recently challenged his divorce decree, arguing in part that the court abused its discretion by not considering the wife’s adultery in its property division.
According to the appeals court, both parties were from India, but the husband was working in Texas prior to the marriage. The parties got married in India in 2004 and wife moved to Texas with the husband. They had two children together.
The husband petitioned for divorce on the grounds of adultery in October 2018. He asked the court to award him the marital residence. In her counterpetition, the wife alleged the husband had committed acts of cruelty. Both parties alleged fraud on the community by the other spouse.
Following a jury trial, the jury found the wife committed adultery, but that the husband had not committed cruelty. It also found the wife had committed fraud on the community by sending her affair partner $9,300 and that the husband had committed fraud on the community by wiring his father $69,500 after he filed his divorce petition. The court awarded the wife the marital residence.
Disproportionate Division
The husband appealed the decree, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a grossly disproportionate share of the community estate to the wife. The husband did not identify the proportion of the estate awarded by the court, but, according to the wife, the court awarded 47.34% of the estate, or $621,129.94, to the husband and 52.66%, or $690,802.04, to her, not including a pension plan that was equally divided.
An appeal court reviewing a property division must consider whether the court had sufficient information to exercise its discretion and whether it abused that discretion with a manifestly unjust and unfair property division.
The appeals court concluded the court had sufficient information to divide the property.
The husband argued the trial court’s reasoning seemed to be based “solely” on the husband’s alleged concealment of the existence of a retirement account. The appeals court rejected this argument, noting the trial court had also made findings regarding each spouse’s earning power and found that the wife’s was “substantially less” than the husband’s.
The husband also argued the trial court had not properly weighed the factors set forth in Murff v. Murff. Those factors include the spouses’ relative earning capacities, business opportunities, education, physical conditions, ages, education, separate estates, and relative financial conditions.
The husband argued the wife had “refused to work, practice her skills, and contribute to the family budget. The appeals court rejected the husband’s position that part of the wife’s testimony supported his argument, pointing out her testimony indicated she stopped working to care for the children. The wife had a computer science engineering degree and some work experience, but had not worked outside the home for most of the marriage. The appeals court also determined the record showed the husband had a “substantially greater earning power,” which was consistent with the trial court’s findings.
Consideration of Fault
The husband also argued the trial court had not considered the wife’s adultery. The appeals court pointed out that the court could have considered the wife’s fault in the breakup without using the property division to punish her, but was not required to do so. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court not to place significant weight on the wife’s adultery. The appeals court concluded the property division was not grossly disproportionate, in light of the parties’ relative earning capacities.
The appeals court also rejected the husband’s argument that the 50/50 possession schedule was an abuse of discretion because the jury had found he should have the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence. The appeals court also rejected his argument that the week-on/week-off possession schedule was not supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence that it was in the children’s best interest, concluding there was evidence of a substantive and probative character supporting the possession and access order.
The appeals court affirmed the decree.
Call a Dallas Divorce Lawyer
In this case, the appeals court determined the disproportionate division was not an abuse of discretion, particularly considering the difference in earning capacity between the parties, even though the jury found the wife committed adultery. If you are facing a high net-worth divorce with a significant difference in assets and earning capacity, a skilled Texas divorce attorney can help you pursue a favorable outcome. Call McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.