Francesca Blackard, Author at Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

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.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Custody Modification Despite Mother’s Decision Not to Relocate

Published on: November 27, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

Texas custody orders commonly include geographic restrictions limiting a parent’s ability to relocate the children outside a specified area. Regardless of whether there is a geographic restriction, a parent may seek to prevent the other parent from relocating with the children, often through modification of the custody order to either modify or add a geographic restriction or to change the parent with the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence. A mother recently challenged a modification giving the father the right to establish the children’s primary residence after she provided him notice of her intent to move to another county.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties were appointed joint managing conservators with equal possession in the agreed final divorce decree. The mother was awarded the exclusive right to establish the primary residence for their two children, with a geographic restriction.

Pursuant to the decree, the mother could move the children to Harris or Dallas County if she provided the father six months’ notice of her intent to relocate and if the father successfully “secure[d] a transfer in employment” to that county. She notified him in 2020 that she intended to move to Harris County.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Supervised Visitation and Other Requirements

Published on: November 14, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

In some circumstances, a court may order supervised visitation in a Texas custody case if necessary to protect the child’s health and safety. Supervised visitation allows the parent and child to maintain their relationship, while protecting he child’s safety. A father recently appealed a modification order requiring him to comply with certain conditions, including supervised visitation.

In the parents’ final divorce decree, they were both appointed joint managing conservators of the children. The mother was awarded the exclusive right to designate the residence of the children within a specified county. The decree required the father to maintain a Soberlink subscription, attend Alcoholics Anonymous, and have supervised visitation.

The trial court modified the parent-child relationship after finding the father was in contempt of the decree in January 2021. The modification order required the father’s visitation to be supervised in accordance with the conditions set out in the order. He was required to have an “adult assistant/babysitter present” who stayed within line of sight and hearing of the father and children any time he had possession. The assistant/babysitter was required to stay within line of sight and hearing of the father and children. The parties were to mutually agree upon the assistant/babysitter, or the court would designate one. The court stated its ruling resulted from the contempt finding.

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Spousal Maintenance Award

Published on: November 6, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

Trial courts are permitted to award Texas spousal maintenance in only limited circumstances. If the spouse meets the eligibility requirements for maintenance, the court must consider a number of factors to determine the nature, amount, and duration. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.052. Spousal maintenance is limited to the lesser of $5,000.00 or 20% of the spouse’s average monthly gross income. Certain items are excluded from “gross income,” including service-connected Veterans Affairs disability payments, supplemental security income (“SSI”), social security benefits, or disability benefits. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.055. A husband recently challenged an order requiring him to pay spousal maintenance.

Wife Seeks Spousal Maintenance

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got married in 2006 and the wife filed for divorce in 2019. The wife sought spousal maintenance pursuant to Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code and based on “contractual alimony.” She testified she was unable to work due to medical issues. She said she lived with her daughter and did not have any income.

The wife testified the husband received $3,809.02 monthly from the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and $816 per month in social security. She also testified that he also earned income by performing in a band. She said he was paid under the table and was unable to estimate how much he earned.

Texas Enforcement Order Reversed Due to Due Process Issues at Hearing

Published on: October 13, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

A trial court in a Texas divorce case has discretion in how the trial is conducted, but that discretion is not unlimited. In a recent case, the appeals court determined the trial court abused its discretion by imposing time restrictions that allowed the husband more time to present the case than it allowed the wife and by refusing the wife’s request to present an offer of proof.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the divorce decree awarded the wife the marital residence; the entire community interest in a business; three of the business’s bank accounts, with the husband receiving half of the funds in them; and the household furniture and other personal property in her possession or control. The husband was awarded 50% of the equity in the house; certain assets from the business; the furniture and other personal property in his possession or control; and 50% of the business’s accounts receivable.

Enforcement Hearing

The husband filed a motion asking the court to enforce the property division by contempt.

Texas Spousal Maintenance

Published on: September 25, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

Pursuant to Texas Fam. Code § 8.051, the court may award Texas spousal maintenance to a spouse who lacks sufficient resources to provide for their own minimum reasonable needs if the other spouse was convicted of or received deferred adjudication for a criminal offense that constituted an act of family violence against the spouse or the spouse’s child and the offense occurred within two years before the divorce case was filed or while it was pending. Additionally, the court may award maintenance to a spouse who lacks sufficient resources to provide for their own minimum needs if they: are unable to earn sufficient income to provide for their minimum reasonable needs due to an incapacitating disability; lack the ability to earn sufficient income after being married to the other spouse for at least 10 years; or are the custodian of the parties’ child with a disability who requires substantial care and supervision that prevents the custodial parent from earning sufficient income. A husband recently appealed a spousal maintenance award, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the wife was eligible for maintenance.

Wife Seeks Spousal Maintenance

The husband petitioned for divorce after seven years of marriage, alleging insupportability. He requested the court to appoint the parties joint managing conservators of their child.

The wife also alleged the marriage was insupportable, but also alleged cruel treatment and “a history or pattern of committing family violence” by the husband. She alleged she would not have adequate resources to meet her minimum reasonable needs and sought spousal maintenance. She claimed she was eligible to receive spousal maintenance as a result of “domestic violence.”

Characterization of Personal Injury Recovery in Texas Divorce

Published on: September 4, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

The characterization of funds received for personal injuries can be a complex issue in a Texas divorce. Texas family law presumes that property possessed by a spouse during or on dissolution of the marriage is community property. When a spouse claims certain property is separate, that spouse must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property is separate. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003. Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 3.001, recovery for personal injuries sustained during the marriage is separate property. There is an exception, however, for recovery for lost earning capacity during the marriage. Because a spouse claiming separate property has the burden of proof, that spouse must show by clear and convincing evidence what part of a personal injury settlement is separate property. Recently, a husband appealed the trial court’s ruling which characterized his personal injury recovery as community property.

Personal Injury Settlement

According to the appeals court, the husband and wife married in 1994 and lived separately at various times during the marriage. In December 2014, husband was injured as the result of an automobile accident in the scope of his employment. The parties were separated when the accident occurred, but subsequently reconciled.

The husband settled for the other driver’s policy limits of $30,000. He also received net proceeds of $710,724.25 from a settlement with his employer’s under-insured motorist coverage. Thereafter, his attorneys transferred those funds into the parties’ joint checking account on October 8, 2019. The parties then separated that month and the wife filed a divorce petition on November 1.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Business Property Valuation in Divorce Case

Published on: August 28, 2023 | by Francesca Blackard

Businesses can be difficult to accurately value in a Texas divorce. A wife recently challenged a property division involving two businesses, arguing the court had insufficient evidence to make the just and right division.

When the husband filed for divorce, each party pleaded the marriage was insupportable. The wife also pleaded the husband had committed adultery.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the significant assets were a business operated by the wife, an interest in a pool-installation business operated by the husband, the houses each party lived in, two rental properties, a house in Mexico, an interest in two lots where the pool installation business was located, several vehicles, and several bank accounts and a CD.