Articles Posted in Divorce

iStock-1187184203-300x200TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 34.001(a) provides that a judgment becomes dormant if a writ of execution is not issued within 10 years of its rendition.  A judgment is dormant, execution may not be issued unless it is revived.  A dormant judgment may be revived within two years of becoming dormant.  TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 31.006.  A former wife recently argued that her ex-husband could not enforce a payment obligation contained in their divorce decree because the judgment had become dormant.

2008 Divorce – $30,000 Judgment Awarded to Husband

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties divorced in 2008.  The decree awarded the husband $30,000, with interest beginning 12 months after the judgment, secured by a lien on the home where the wife lived.  The unpaid principle and accrued interest were to be paid upon the earliest of: the sale of the home, the youngest child’s emancipation, the wife’s remarriage or cohabitation with a romantic partner, the wife’s death, or the home ceasing to be the primary residence of the children.

The husband filed an application for turnover and appointment of a receiver in 2021.  His counsel stated that the earliest of the listed events happened in May 2014, when the youngest child turned 18 and graduated high school.  The wife argued that the judgment had become dormant.  The trial court signed a turnover order and appointed a receiver to possess and liquidate the wife’s non-exempt property to satisfy the judgment.  She appealed.

Continue Reading ›

property-division-300x110Property in a Texas divorce does not have to be divided equally, but instead must be divided in a just and right manner.  There can be a number of ways to achieve a just and right division, especially when the property is a large piece of real estate.  In a recent case, a husband asked the court to award the wife a smaller portion of the parties’ ranch, which he claimed was more valuable than the rest of the ranch.

Wife Precluded from Presenting Testimony about Value of Ranch

The parties married in 1995.  When the wife petitioned for divorce, the parties owned a ranch together.  Before the trial, the husband moved to compel discovery and subsequently for discovery sanctions.  The trial court granted the motions and ordered that the wife would not be allowed to testify about the community property’s value.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, he husband testified that the tax appraisal for the ranch was $529,280, but that the ranch was only worth $400,000.  He asked the trial court to award him the entire ranch, or alternatively to award the wife the “richest 10 acres” and give him the other 40.  He testified the westernmost ten acres were the most beautiful and had the richest soil.  The remaining 40 acres included several improvements, including a mobile home, a barn, and a pond.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-1287431987-300x200Texas prenuptial agreements may include a provision requiring arbitration in the event of a divorce.  The Texas Family Code includes provisions making arbitration of divorce cases different from the arbitration of other types of cases.  A wife recently sought mandamus relief after the trial court ordered arbitration pursuant to a prenuptial agreement.

Parties Executed Islamic Premarital Agreement

According to the court’s opinion, the parties had executed an “Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement.” It included a provision requiring resolution of conflicts in accordance with Islamic law by either in a Muslim court or by a three-member Fiqh panel.

The wife denied knowing the contents of the agreement when it was executed.  She claimed she thought it was a second copy of the parties’ marriage contract.

Continue Reading ›

does-adultery-affect-alimony-in-idaho-1080x600-1-300x167Property possessed by a spouse during or upon dissolution of the marriage is presumed to be community property.  Clear and convincing evidence that the property is separate is required to rebut that presumption.

Wife Asserts Gift from Parties’ Son

A husband recently appealed a divorce decree, arguing the trial court erred in finding all accounts in the wife’s name in Bangladesh banks were the wife’s separate property.  The wife claimed the money in those accounts had been gifted to her by their son.  Property acquired by gift or inheritance is generally separate property.  TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 3.001.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties’ son testified he had sent his mother $500 a month through an automatic deposit into her bank account since 2006.  He said the money was a gift only to his mother.  The wife testified she had transferred some of those funds into her accounts in Bangladesh.

Continue Reading ›

property-division-300x110The court in a Texas divorce must make a just and right division of the parties’ estate.  This does not necessarily require the court to award  the parties equal shares of the property.  Property acquired during a marriage is generally community property, but property acquired before the marriage or by gift, devise, or descent is separate property. A party claiming separate property must show that it is separate by clear and convincing evidence.  A husband recently challenged a court’s characterization of certain property as the wife’s separate property.

The parties got married in 1997 and the husband filed for divorce in 2019.  Each party sought a disproportionate share of the marital estate.

Wife Asserts Separate-Property Claim

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a significant issue in the divorce was property purchased by the wife in 1997 after the marriage.  She leased the building in 1990 and renewed the lease in 1995. After the marriage, she bought it.  She testified the written lease she signed in 1995 gave her an option to purchase, but she had lost the document.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-1270267953-300x200Even when parties seem to agree on issues related to Texas property division, disputes may still arise.  In a recent case, a husband challenged a trial court’s treatment of certain property after seemingly agreeing to that treatment during the hearing.

The husband petitioned for divorce in May 2019.  The husband and wife stipulated that a particular parcel of land was the husband’s separate property, but the mobile home on that property was the wife’s separate property.

The husband testified he wanted to purchase the mobile home or sell the parcel and mobile home together and equally divide the proceeds.  He expressed a preference to buy the mobile home himself but also said there were buyers interested in purchasing them as a single asset.  The wife testified she wanted to sell the mobile home to the husband for $15,000 or alternatively to sell both together and divide the proceeds equally.  The husband responded “Yes” when asked if he agreed to sell the parcel and the mobile home together and split the proceeds. When he was asked about division of another piece of property, he said he thought the parties had reached agreement on the five-acre parcel and mobile home and thought they could also reach agreement on the larger parcel.  The trial court specifically told the husband that he was “not going to have the five acres and the mobile home. . .”

Continue Reading ›

judge-and-gavel-in-courtroom-171096040-583b48533df78c6f6af9f0e3-300x225While videoconferencing technology allowed certain court proceedings to occur and cases to move forward during the pandemic when in-person proceedings were not available, the technology is not without its problems in a court setting.  Some individuals, especially those living in rural areas, may not have access to a strong internet connection. Others may not have appropriate devices or know how to use the technology.  Another serious issue can be control of the courtroom, including technical issues, distractions, and disruptions by parties or non-parties. In a recent case, a wife challenged a divorce decree because judgment was rendered after the trial was stopped during the presentation of her case.

Divorce Trial Held Over Zoom – and Stopped Abruptly

The divorce case was held over Zoom without a jury.  The wife was the first witness, and the husband kept interrupting, often accusing the wife of lying.  The trial judge was unable to stop him and ultimately stopped the trial before the wife had finished presenting her case.  The trial judge stated she would grant the divorce and divide the property.

The final divorce decree was signed on January 29, 2021.  The decree granted the divorce and the wife’s name change. It also divided the assets and liabilities.  The wife moved for a new trial, arguing the trial had been stopped early.  The husband died less than two months after the decree was signed.  The wife subsequently appealed.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-1125625723-300x200When parties to a Texas divorce agree to a property division, the final judgment based on the agreement must strictly comply with it.  The trial court cannot add, change, or leave out material terms.  A final judgment based on a property division agreement  must be set aside if it is not in strict compliance with the agreement, unless the discrepancy is a clerical error.  An appeals court may modify a judgment to correct a clerical error.  A former husband recently challenged the property division in his divorce due to a number of alleged discrepancies.

Husband and Wife Submitted Proposed Property Division

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties agreed to a proposed property division, identified as “Exhibit A.” The wife testified the division was fair and just. She agreed to split funds in the husband’s IRA equally after he was credited $90,000 as separate property and to split the funds in his “Edge” and “Smart” retirement plans equally.

The husband initially disagreed with the property division in Exhibit A, but later asked the court to approve it. The trial court admitted the document into evidence, asked the parties to draft and sign an agreed final decree.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-545456068-300x184A party may challenge a judgment as void through either a collateral or direct attack. Generally, a Texas divorce decree is only subject to collateral attack if the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter.  Other errors must be challenged through a direct attack.  A direct attack can be either a pleading filed in the original case while the trial court still has plenary power or a timely-filed bill of review under a new cause number.  A bill of review is generally the only appropriate method of direct attack after the trial court’s plenary power has expired.

Husband Seeks to Set Aside Divorce Decree

In a recent case, a husband filed a separate lawsuit seeking to have the divorce decree set aside, arguing the marriage and decree were both void due to the wife’s bigamy.

A trial court had denied the husband’s request for annulment based on fraud, but granted his petition for divorce in March 2019.  The court also awarded the wife certain assets.  The following month, the wife was indicted for bigamy.  The indictment alleged she had still been married to someone else when she married the husband in 2017. The husband was ordered to pay her attorney’s fees and spousal support in June 2019.  In July, the wife petitioned for enforcement.

Continue Reading ›

2018_10_agreement-300x165People commonly obtain life-insurance policies and name their spouse as the beneficiary. They do not always remember to update the beneficiary designation when they get divorced.  Under Texas law, designation of a spouse as beneficiary before a divorce will only remain effective after the divorce in certain circumstances.  Generally, either the court or the insured must designate the former spouse as beneficiary, or the former spouse must be designated to receive the proceeds in trust for a child or dependent’s benefit.  In a recent case, an ex-wife challenged a court awarding a life-insurance policy on the ex-husband to the ex-husband many years after the original divorce.

Insurance Policy Not Divided in Divorce

During the marriage, the parties obtained a life insurance policy on the husband with the wife named as beneficiary.  The policy was not addressed in the divorce decree in 2009.  The husband subsequently filed a bill of review, and the parties agreed to be co-owners of the policy.  They agreed the wife would receive half of the proceeds and the rest would go into a trust for their children. The court ordered the parties to split the policy into two, but the insurance company was unable to do so.

The husband then filed for declaratory judgment, seeking to be named the sole owner of the policy.  He also asked for a temporary restraining order against both the wife and the insurer. Alternatively, he sought to divide undivided property.  The wife’s counter-petition also sought a declaratory judgment that the policy was her separate property and to divide undivided assets.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information