Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
Evidence of property values is necessary for a just and right property division in a Texas divorce. A former husband recently challenged a property division, arguing the court abused its discretion in awarding his former wife a disproportionate share and in denying his motion to reopen the evidence.
The parties got married in 2004 and the wife petitioned for divorce in July 2023. The husband filed a counterpetition. The wife filed an inventory and appraisement in April 2024. The husband, however, failed to make initial disclosures, respond to the wife’s requests for production, or file an inventory and appraisement.
The applicable local rules required parties to file a sworn inventory and appraisement of property, debts, and liabilities at least 30 days before trial. Additionally, the version of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 in effect required parties to a divorce to provide certain information in initial disclosures prior to a request for discovery from the other party, but that rule has since been amended.
The wife moved to compel initial disclosures and response to her discovery requests. Before the motion was decided, the husband’s attorney moved to withdraw due to not being able to “effectively communicate” with the husband. The court allowed the withdrawal. It also granted the wife’s motion and ordered the husband to provide an inventory and appraisement, make initial disclosures, and produce the documents responsive to the wife’s requests for production within 30 days. The husband, however, did not provide the inventory and appraise or make initial disclosures, and did not produce all of the responsive documents.
The husband retained an attorney on the day of trial, but the court denied his motion for continuance.
Both parties testified and introduced evidence of their debts and the value of their assets, which included the marital residence, oil and gas well interests, and farming and ranching property.
The trial court granted the divorce and addressed the issues related to the children, but took the property division under advisement.
The husband moved to reopen the evidence, claiming testimony revealed that there was substantial evidence that was not available to the court.
The court denied the motion. In the final divorce decree, the court awarded the farming and ranching property and marital home to the husband. It awarded the wife the interests in oil and gas wells. The husband’s credit card debt was awarded to him.
The husband appealed the property division and the denial of his motion to reopen the evidence.
Property Division
The husband argued the trial court erred in giving a disproportionate share of the marital estate to the wife. He argued there was not sufficient evidence of the value of certain assets.
The trial court admitted the wife’s inventory and appraisement into evidence. The wife testified about the value of the oil and gas well interests. She valued their interests in wells operated by one company at $30,000 and the interests in another company at $33,000, based on the amount they invested
The husband argued this valuation method was not accurate and value should be calculated by multiplying the yearly production by 4. He said he “wouldn’t take any less” than $75,000 or $80,000 for their interests in one company’s wells and “probably double that” for the other company.
The wife did not know how many cattle they had, but provided bank and USDA records showing the husband had farm loans of about $868,780 secured by $1,202,500 in collateral. The collateral included equipment, vehicles, and livestock.
The husband disagreed with the value of the collateral and claimed some of it was owned by his father.
The wife also had evidence the husband paid $82,300 for charges on his credit card after she filed for divorce. She testified she had not benefited from his use of the card and did not know what he purchased with it. She said he told her he used it for living expenses. The husband testified he used the card for living expenses, but claimed he primarily used it for farming expenses.
Because neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and the court did not file any, the appeals court presumed the trial court made all findings in support of its judgment.
The evidence presented constituted some evidence upon which the court could have based valuations of the farming and ranching property, the oil and gas interests, and the credit card debt. The trial court awarded other property in the property division without assigning it a value. The court did not state a value for the total community estate. The divorce decree did not indicate whether the property awards were equal or disproportionate.
The trial court did not make any findings of fact related to the value of the parties’ property or debt. There was nothing in the record showing either party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appeals court noted it could not know the basis for the division, the values the court assigned, or the proportion of the estate awarded to the parties.
Additionally, without findings, the husband could not establish whether the division was actually disproportionate, whether the court intended a disproportionate division, or what factors the court found that warranted a disproportionate division if that is what it intended. The appeals court therefore could not determine the trial court had abused its discretion in dividing the community estate.
Denied Motion to Reopen Evidence
A trial court may generally allow additional evidence when it is “necessary to the due administration of justice,” pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270. The court has discretion to reopen the evidence, and an appeals court will only overturn that decision if there was a clear abuse of that discretion. The trial court may consider a number of factors in making that decision.
The husband argued he wanted to present bank statements, evidence of the ownership of certain farm property, and financial documentation. He argued the evidence was important so the court could have a complete understanding of the estate and necessary for a fair and equitable property division.
The appeals court noted the husband had about a year and a half from the date he was served until the trial date. His first attorney withdrew due to a lack of responsiveness by the husband related to initial disclosures, the inventory and appraisement, and production request. The court ordered him to make initial disclosures, provide an inventory and appraisement, and produce requested documents, but he only provided some documents at the time of trial. He waited until close to trial to obtain a new attorney. The appeals court determined the husband had time and opportunity to gather the evidence prior to the trial.
The appeals court concluded the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the husband’s motion to reopen evidence when the husband had not exercised due diligence.
Call a Dallas Divorce Lawyer
Property values are often in dispute in Texas divorces. It is important for each party to present their evidence regarding the value of marital and separate assets, and to follow procedural rules in doing so. In this case, the husband was not permitted to present his evidence related to the value of certain assets. If your marriage is ending, a skilled Texas high net worth divorce attorney can help you present your case and pursue a favorable outcome. Schedule a consultation with McClure Law Group by calling 214.692.8200.