Francesca Blackard, Author at Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Divorce Involving Adultery

Published on: April 19, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

Although Texas has recognized no-fault divorce since 1970, it also still recognizes fault-based divorce on grounds including adultery, cruelty, and conviction of a felony. Proving an at-fault ground for divorce can affect property division, spousal maintenance, and other matters in a divorce.

A spouse seeking divorce based on adultery must prove by “clear and convincing” evidence, beyond just suggestion and innuendo, that the other spouse had sexual intercourse with someone else during the marriage. Evidence may include text or email messages, phone records, photos, or financial records. Adultery can occur at any point during the marriage, even after the spouses stop living together.

Property Division

The court in a Texas divorce must divide the community estate in a “just and right” manner. A court has broad discretion in formulating a just and right division, and may consider a number of factors in doing so. One of those factors is fault in the breakup of the marriage. A spouse alleging the other committed adultery may therefore seek a disproportionate share of the community property based on the alleged affair.

Agreement Regarding Real Property During Texas Divorce

Published on: April 14, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

Parties to a Texas divorce may enter into an “agreement incident to divorce” regarding property division, liabilities, and spousal maintenance. If the court finds the agreement’s terms are just and right, they become binding and the court may set forth the agreement or incorporate it by reference in the final divorce decree. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 7.006. A former husband recently appealed a postdivorce property division order that found the marital home was the wife’s separate property, based on an agreement between the parties.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the agreement signed by the parties during the divorce proceedings stated that the marital home was community property, but that the parties agreed the wife would become its owner and assume the mortgage. It further stated the husband granted, conveyed, and gave his interest in the property to the wife and agreed to executed any documents needed to effectuate and document the conveyance. The husband moved out.

The final divorce decree did not address the home’s ownership. The husband subsequently petitioned for postdivorce property division. The trial court found the home was the wife’s separate property. The husband requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings identified the home as the wife’s separate property. The husband asked for additional findings and conclusions, but the trial court did not file any additional or amended findings. He appealed.

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Restitution and Reconstitution of Community Estate

Published on: April 7, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

A party to a Texas divorce is entitled to reimbursement to the marital estate when community time, labor, or skills are used to benefit the other party’s separate estate beyond what is needed for maintenance of the separate property. The trial court has broad discretion to apply equitable principles. A former wife recently challenged a divorce decree that granted her former husband’s requests for reimbursement and reconstitution of the community estate.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband requested a disproportionate share of the community property and reimbursement to both the community estate and his separate estate. He argued the wife’s separate estate had benefited from both the community and his separate estate. He also alleged the wife conspired with her daughter “to accomplish an unlawful purpose and/or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means” to dispose of the proceeds from the sale of a house. He sought actual and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees.

The wife also requested a disproportionate share of the community estate. She argued the civil conspiracy claim was barred by both the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. She also argued that the parties freely granted their interest in the property to her daughter and that the husband had agreed to and ratified her actions.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Order Making Ex-Husband Liable for Salary Payments

Published on: March 11, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

A court may render orders to enforce or clarify the property division in a Texas divorce decree, but generally may not render an order that makes substantive changes to the property division once it is final. A former husband recently challenged a clarification order, arguing it improperly modified the decree.

Divorce Decree

According to the appeals court, the parties were married for more than 15 years when they got divorced in 2018. The agreed divorce decree referenced a “privately held compan[y]” that employed them both. The decree awarded all ownership interest in the company to the husband as separate property. It also awarded him the intellectual property he created used in connection with that ownership and the cash in two bank accounts in the company’s name beginning November 1, 2018.

Those bank accounts had been included in a list in the decree for which the husband would have the “sole right to withdraw funds” or “subject to [his] sole control[.]”

Texas Court Cannot Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Collateral Attack on Custody Jurisdiction

Published on: February 25, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), codified in Chapter 152 of the Texas Family Code addresses how to determine jurisdiction in custody matters involving more than one state. Generally, a Texas trial court that made a custody determination consistent with § 152.201 or 152.203 retains continuing jurisdiction until a court makes certain determinations regarding a lack of significant connection to the state or residence. Tex. Fam. Code § 152.202.

In a recent case, a mother appealed following a modification, arguing the trial court had not acquired custody jurisdiction in the original divorce case because Colorado had subject-matter jurisdiction over the children pursuant to the UCCJEA.

Procedural History

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the trial court entered an agreed final divorce decree in 2017 that named the parents joint managing conservators of their two children. The mother was awarded the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence until they turned twelve, with no geographic limitations.

Fraud on the Community in Texas Divorce

Published on: February 10, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

Spouses have a fiduciary duty toward each other with regard to the community estate and commit fraud on the community if they breach a legal or equitable duty in violation of the fiduciary relationship. Fraud on the community often occurs when assets are transferred to a third party, but can also occur when it is unaccounted for.

If a court determines a spouse committed fraud, it must determine the amount the community estate was depleted and the total value it would have had absent the fraud. The trial court then divides the reconstituted estate in a just and right manner, which may include awarding the other spouse a disproportionate share of the community estate, a money judgment, or both. Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009. A husband recently appealed the trial court’s finding of fraud, judgments, and property division in his Texas divorce.

The Marriage

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband owned a home when the parties married in 2002.

Texas Divorce Decree Must Generally Comply with Mediated Settlement Agreement

Published on: January 31, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

If the parties in a Texas custody case reach a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), the court must enter judgment on the MSA. The MSA is binding if it meets the three requirements set out in Tex. Fam. Code § 153.0071(d). First, it must prominently state that it is not subject to revocation. It must also be signed by the parties. Finally, it must also be signed by any party’s attorney who is present at execution. The court may, however, decline to enter judgment on an MSA if it finds that a party was the victim of family violence which impaired their ability to make decisions and that the agreement is not in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.0071(e-1). Unless this exception applies, the trial court generally does not have the discretion to deviate from the MSA and a party is entitled to judgment on the MSA. A court’s order may include terms that are necessary to implement the MSA, but it may not substantially alter the MSA. A father recently challenged a divorce decree that did not compart with the parties’ MSA with regards to where exchanges were to occur.

Mediated Settlement Agreement

The parents had two children together during their marriage. They separated in 2020 and signed an MSA in October 2021. Pursuant to the MSA, the parents would be joint managing conservators and the mother would have the right to determine the children’s primary residence. The MSA further gave the father a standard possession order which would be an expanded standard possession order if he lived within 50 miles of the children. It also provided that the exchange location would be at a particular McDonald’s in Huntsville with a pickup time of 8 p.m. and a drop-off time of 5 p.m. as long as the father and children lived in the current locations, with provisions for changing the location if the parents lived in the same county.

At the hearing, the mother’ attorney claimed that the MSA was intended to state that the parties would only meet in Huntsville once a month instead of for all the exchanges. The father’s attorney argued, however, that the provision stated what the father wanted with regard to exchanges.

Texas Appeals Court Concludes “Build Provision” in Divorce Decree Not Ambiguous

Published on: January 7, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

A Texas divorce decree provision that was agreed upon by the parties is construed according to contract principles. In interpreting the contract, the court considers the entire agreement. Words are given their plain meaning unless there is an indication the parties intended something else. A contract is not ambiguous if it can be interpreted with a definite legal meaning. It is ambiguous if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Generally, a court may only consider outside evidence to interpret an ambiguous contract. A husband recently challenged a trial court’s denial of his petition for enforcement of the property division in his divorce decree.

The parties’ 2017 divorce decree included agreed property-division provisions that awarded the wife a 2.6 acre lot “as her sole and separate property.” The decree divested the husband of all right, title, interest and claim to the lot. It also included a conditional provision that the wife “begin the process of building” a home on the lot, with the property reverting back to the husband if she failed to comply. The decree did not include a time by which the wife had to comply nor did it define what was meant by “begin” or “the process of building.” The wife was prohibited from selling the lot for commercial purposes and was required to give the husband a first right of purchase option.

The wife did not complete building a house on the lot and the husband filed a petition for enforcement. He alleged that the wife had not begun “the process of building a permanent, fixed home structure” on the lot. He asked the court to order her to execute a general warranty deed.

The trial court denied the petition after a hearing and the husband appealed. The husband argued on appeal that the decree was ambiguous and that the trial court erred in not clarifying it and enforcing the clarified decree.

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Order with Exclusive Decision-Making and No Geographic Restriction

Published on: December 21, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

The relief granted by a court generally must conform to the pleadings of the parties, unless the parties consent to try an issue that was not included in the pleadings. In a recent Texas custody case, a father appealed a court order that he argued not only did not conform to the pleadings, but was also contrary to the court’s findings and not supported by evidence.

The parents lived together for the first two years of the child’s life, but did not get married. The child lived with the mother after they separated.

The father petitioned for appointment as joint managing conservator with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. He also requested a geographic restriction. Pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (“MSA”), the court issued temporary orders appointing both parents joint managing conservators with the mother having the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence in Fannin and contiguous counties. The temporary orders also gave each parent the right to consent to medical treatment and education, subject to the other parent’s consent. The parents shared visitation under the temporary orders, alternating weeks with the child.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Disproportionate Property Division

Published on: November 29, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

The court in a Texas divorce must make a just and right division of the marital estate. The estate does not have to be equally divided if there is a reasonable basis in the record for an unequal division. A former husband recently challenged, for the second time, the property division in his divorce.

The First Appeal

In his first appeal, the husband argued the trial court erred in its property division by including the value of a condominium that he claimed belonged to his father. The appeals court concluded the condominium belonged to the husband, wife, and the husband’s father and that the trial court had erred in including its total value in the community estate. The appeals court determined including only the two spouses’ interest in the valuation of the community estate would materially affect the property division, it remanded to the trial court for a just and right division.

The trial court signed an order on remand that stated its original community property division was just and right. Furthermore, the trial court awarded the wife appellate attorney’s fees.