Texas has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), which identifies what state has jurisdiction over custody matters. The UCCJEA generally prioritizes the child’s home state for jurisdiction.   The child’s home state is where they have lived with a parent for the six months before the custody proceeding commenced, or if they are less than six months old, where they have lived with a parent since birth.

For a Texas court to have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination, Texas must be the child’s home state on the date the proceeding commenced or must have been the child’s home state within six months before the proceeding commenced if the child is absent from Texas but a parent or person acting as a parent still lives in Texas.  Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(1). Texas may also have jurisdiction if another state court does not have jurisdiction or if child’s home state court declined jurisdiction because Texas was a more appropriate forum and the child and the parents, or the child and at least one parent or on person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with Texas and there is substantial evidence in Texas regarding the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(2). A Texas court may also have jurisdiction if all courts having jurisdiction on the grounds above have declined to exercise it because a Texas court is a more appropriate forum. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(3). Furthermore, Texas may have jurisdiction when no other court or any state would have jurisdiction based on the above criteria.  Tex. Fam. Code § 152.201(a)(4).

A mother recently challenged a Texas court’s jurisdiction over her child’s custody.  According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties separated while the mother was pregnant and she moved to Chicago before the child was born.   The mother filed for divorce in Illinois and the father filed for divorce in Texas.  The mother’s petition did not include an issue related to the custody of the unborn child, but the father’s petition did.  The child was born in in Illinois after both petitions had been filed.

Continue Reading ›

Characterization and valuation of property can be heavily contested issues in Texas divorces, especially in cases involving a high net worth or businesses.  A wife recently challenged the court’s characterization of certain property and property division.

The husband petitioned for divorce just a year and eight months after the marriage.  The court’s judgment confirmed certain property as his separate property and divided the community property. The court awarded specific items to each party, and granted a judgment for half the value to the other party, resulting in a generally equal division of the community property. The court also divided cash and bank accounts equally.

The court awarded the wife an equalization judgment of $232,878.85 and the husband an equalization judgment of $56,300. The court also awarded the husband a judgment of $80,000 for his separate property that the court found the wife had converted.

Continue Reading ›

Courts may modify a Texas custody order if doing so is in the best interest of the children and there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances of the child or a conservator since the order was rendered.  Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101. In determining the children’s best interest, courts consider the factors set forth in Holley v. Adams, but the court is not limited to those factors and all of the Holley factors may not apply in each case.

Courts may also place geographic restrictions on the child’s primary residence to ensure children are able to have frequent and continuing contact with their parents. To determine the children’s best interest when one parent wants to relocate, court consider a number of factors set forth in Lenz v. Lenz.  A father recently appealed the denial of his modification petition seeking a more limited geographic restriction.

Modification Proceeding

The father petitioned for modification of the parent-child relationship to reduce the statewide geographic restriction to Midland County.  Alternatively, he asked the court to modify the relationship as it deemed in the children’s best interest.  He also asked for increased travel expenses because the mother had relocated.  In her counterpetition, the mother sought to be named the sole managing conservator with the father being named possessory conservator with supervised visitation.  They both alleged a material and substantial change in circumstances since the divorce decree was signed and entered.

Continue Reading ›

Generally, the date of a marriage is certain, but that is often not the case with an informal marriage. The date of marriage affects the characterization of property and therefore a dispute over the date of marriage can significantly impact the property division. A former husband recently appealed a divorce decree, arguing in part that the trial court erred in finding the parties were married on or about January 1, 2012, which was before their ceremonial wedding.

According to the appeals court, the parties had a ceremonial wedding in January 2013.  The husband petitioned for divorce in late 2020, alleging they had “married on or about January 31, 2013.” In the wife’s counterpetition, she alleged they “married on or about January 1, 2012.”

The trial focused on the marital residence, some property in Mexico, and the husband’s trucking company.

Continue Reading ›

A court may grant a Texas annulment if the other party induced the petitioner into the marriage by fraud, duress or force and the petitioner did not voluntarily cohabit with the other party after learning about the fraud or being released from the force or duress.  Tex. Fam. Code § 6.107.  A former husband recently challenged an annulment, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of fraudulent inducement.

According to the appeals court, when the parties began dating in 2021, the husband was authorized to work in the U.S. and had a pending asylum case. The wife was a U.S. citizen.

They signed a premarital agreement and got married in a civil ceremony in October 2021.  They talked about having a traditional ceremony in India with the husband’s family, but the husband would need a green card to be able to return to the U.S. if they went to India.

Continue Reading ›

The court in a Texas divorce case may appoint a receiver to protect and preserve the property of the parties. TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.502(a)(5).  The receiver only has the powers authorized by the court. The receiver’s role is to receive and preserve the property for all interested parties’ benefit.  The receiver must exercise ordinary care in performing their duties. Receivers may be appropriate in high net worth divorces with complex assets or where there are concerns a party may hide or misuse assets.  In a recent case, a former husband appealed a trial court order terminating receivership, discharging the receiver, and granting turnover relief to the wife.

Appointment of Receiver

The husband petitioned for divorce in 2009.  The court appointed a receiver in 2011 and ordered that he was to take necessary actions to secure payments and manage, control and dispose of the husband’s property. He was also authorized to pay the husband’s living expenses, legal fees and expenses, and court-ordered obligations.

The receiver was subsequently ordered to take possession and control of certain of the husband’s assets, including property in his bankruptcy estate and any exempt retirement accounts. The court instructed the receiver to pay the husband’s living expenses of $5,000 per month, obligations to the wife and minor children, court-ordered obligations to third parties, and up to $1,500 in unexpected expenses of either party, but not more than $6,000 in any four-month period without a court order.

Continue Reading ›

Generally, either party in a Texas divorce is entitled to demand a jury trial pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.703.  A party seeking a jury trial must file a timely request.  If the jury trial is available to a party as a matter of right, the court generally must grant the request unless doing so would injure the other party, disrupt the docket, or impede the court’s business.  Halsell v. Dehoyos.  A party in a civil case may waive the right to a jury trial in some circumstances, including agreeing to a bench trial, not timely requesting a jury trial or paying the fee, not appearing for trial, or not objecting to a bench trial.  In re Marriage of Harrison. In a recent case, a husband appealed a divorce decree after the trial court held a bench trial following his timely request for a jury trial.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties married in 1986 and the wife petitioned for divorce in June 2020.  They accused each other of fraud against the community and cruel treatment. Each sought a disproportionate share of the marital estate and requested reimbursement to the community estate.

The trial court appointed a receiver to take possession and control of the assets, including rental properties and a business.

Continue Reading ›

Pensions and retirement accounts can complicate property division, especially in a high net worth Texas divorce.  Retirement accounts often include both separate and community property.  In a recent case, a former husband challenged the court’s valuation of the wife’s pension and the resulting property division.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties had been married nearly 30 years when the wife left and filed for divorce.  The trial court found the husband had committed fraud on the community and awarded the wife a disproportionate division of the community estate.

The trial court found the assets of the reconstituted community estate were worth more than $1.8 million.  The court also found the community had debts totaling more than $87,000. The court allocated a net estate of over $920,000, or 50.96% of the reconstituted community estate, to the wife and over $888,000, or 49.04%, to the husband.

Continue Reading ›

Sometimes when one parent has international ties, the other parent may have concerns about international abduction.  There is a two-step statutory process to assess and mitigate risk of parental international abduction. The court must consider certain factors to determine if there is credible evidence of a potential risk.  If the court finds there is a credible risk based on the factors, it must determine whether preventive measures should be taken.

In determining if there is a credible risk of international abduction, pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 153.502, the court must consider if there is evidence the parent took, withheld, or concealed a child in violation of someone else’s right of possession of or access to the child or threatened to do so.  The court must also consider whether there is a lack of financial reasons for the parent to remain in the country.  The court must also consider if the parent has recently engaged in planning activities that could facilitate taking the child from the U.S. Furthermore, the court must consider whether the parent has a history of domestic violence, criminal activity, or violating court orders.  The court only has to find credible evidence supporting one of the factors.

In a recent case, a mother appealed a divorce decree that imposed prevention measures without a finding there was a credible risk of international abduction.

Continue Reading ›

The Supreme Court of Texas recently considered the property division in a Texas divorce case involving a complex estate, including an outstanding employee bonus, claims of separate property, and a retirement plan.

The parties got married in 2020 and were divorced in late 2019, with litigation regarding the property division continuing beyond the divorce.

Bonus

During the marriage, the husband worked for a large bank.  He received an annual cash and stock bonus contingent on the bank’s and his own performance.  The bonus was paid around February 15 each year.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information