Articles Posted in Enforcement

Sometimes a party to a Texas divorce may have difficulty collecting what has been awarded to them. Pursuant to the Texas turnover statute, a judgment creditor may ask the court to assist them in reaching the judgment debtor’s non-exempt property.  The court is authorized to take a number of actions, including appointing a receiver. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002.  Appointment of a receiver is considered an “extraordinary remedy” and should not occur if there is a lesser remedy available. Gilbreath v. Horan.  Although a receiver may be appointed in a divorce case, the turnover statute is not limited to divorce cases.  In a recent case, a former wife requested a receiver to satisfy a judgment against her former husband following his divorce from his second wife.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the former husband remarried after the parties’ divorce in 2011.  He and his second wife divorced in 2018.  The first wife argued the property division in the husband’s second divorce constituted a fraudulent transfer to the second wife to avoid debts he owed the first wife.

The parties divorced in Arkansas in 2011.  The husband was ordered to pay $250,223 to a business and $8,000 to the first wife for attorney’s fees.  According to the first wife, she sought garnishment against multiple banks in February 2018 and was awarded $70,000 in one of those actions, partly based on her sole ownership of the business.

Continue Reading ›

Ideally, after a Texas divorce, the parties will cooperate and take any actions needed to sell or transfer property and resolve outstanding issues, but that does not always happen. A Texas appeals court recently considered a case in which a former wife alleged the former husband was preventing the sale of jointly-owned property.

Divorce Case

The parties divorced in March 2020. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the final divorce decree found that a particular piece of real property was community property and awarded each party 50% as their separate property, leaving them tenants in common.  The decree did not address sale or partition of the property.

Second Lawsuit

A couple of months after the decree was signed, the former wife filed suit against the former husband, seeking an order for the sale of the property and partition of the proceeds. She also requested attorney’s fees, expenses, and interest. This lawsuit was ultimately consolidated into the divorce case. The court held a bench trial and signed an order finding the parties were co-tenants and that the property was not subject to partition in kind. The order required the property be listed by June 1, 2022 and that the parties to take all necessary steps and execute any necessary documents to facilitate the sale.  The court also ordered that any proceeds after payment of any encumbrances on the property be split equally between the parties. It did not address the wife’s request for fees, expenses, and interest.

Continue Reading ›

The property division in a high net worth Texas divorce may require one party to convey their interest in certain assets to the other spouse.  In some cases, the parties may agree to liquidated damages in the event one party fails to cooperate and take the actions necessary to transfer their interests.  In a recent case, a former spouse challenged a liquidated damages judgment against him.

The parties, S.K.F. and K.J.W., entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which included an agreement incident to divorce (“AID”). The agreed final divorce decree incorporated the AID and ordered the parties to do the things necessary to effectuate their agreement.

The AID confirmed as K.J.W.’s sole and separate property two condominiums in Puerto Vallarta. It awarded S.K.F. $550,000 for the condominiums, as his sole and separate property. The AID set out the payment schedule of: a check for $150,000 the date the MSA was signed, a check for $275,000 on the date the agreed final divorce decree was signed, and $125,000 paid to a law firm to be held in trust to ensure S.K.F. signed the deeds for the condos.  It further provided if K.J.W. did not submit a formal written request to sign the deeds within 12 months after the divorce, he was to instruct the firm to pay S.K.F. half of the funds.  If he did not make a formal request between the 12th and 24th month after the divorce, K.J.W. was to instruct the firm to pay S.K.F. the other half.  If, however, S.K.F. signed the deeds as required to transfer his interest in the condos at any point during the 24 months after the divorce, K.J.W. was to instruct the firm to pay the entire balance of the funds to S.K.F. immediately. S.K.F. agreed that, upon receiving the written notice, he would have 90 days to arrange travel to Puerto Vallarta and sign the deeds on the date specified. K.J.W. agreed to pay for his reasonable travel expenses up to $1,300. S.K.F. further agreed that if he failed to sign the deeds within 24 months, K.J.W. would be awarded $600,000 in liquidated damages.  The AID also included a general cooperation provision in which both parties agreed “to sign any and all additional documents necessary to effectuate the transfer of any asset, liability or interest in any entity or stock(s) to the other party.”

Continue Reading ›

The conflict in a Texas divorce does not always end when the divorce is finalized, especially a high net worth divorce or one that involves complex assets.  A Texas appeals court recently considered an appeal of a denial of a petition to enforce certain property division provisions from a divorce decree from 1993. The ex-husband was deceased when the petition for enforcement was filed, so his widow, as heir to the property, was the real party in interest in the proceedings.

Divorce Decree

The divorce decree incorporated and adopted a “Property Statement and Settlement,” an agreement between the ex-husband and ex-wife addressing the division of assets and liabilities. The decree awarded the ex-husband a particular property in Williamson Count as his sole and separate property. It provided that the ex-wife was divested of any right and title in the homestead.  The ex-husband would be solely responsible for all liabilities and benefits associated with the dwelling.  The decree further provided that if the husband failed to make the monthly mortgage payments, the house and/or property would be sold. “In the event of sale of said dwelling and/or acreage,” the wife would be entitled to ½ of the net profit. The ex-wife was not to be held liable for any mortgage payments, taxes, or other expenses related to the property.

The decree awarded the ex-wife 100% of the proceeds from the sale of a different property, as well as all benefits associated with it. The decree also awarded her a vehicle, jewelry, a savings account, and a checking account. All debt was awarded to the ex-husband.

Continue Reading ›

Parties in a high profile divorce might want to enter an agreement that goes beyond dividing the property. Celebrities, business owners, or CEOs might seek an agreement that prohibits their former spouse from disclosing private information, disparaging them or their business, or engaging in other behaviors that might damage their reputation or their business.  The agreement can include liquidated damages for violations.  In a recent case, a former wife, her former husband, and his business all appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration award relating to an agreement incident to divorce.

The Agreement

At the time of the divorce, the parties entered into an agreement incident to divorce providing for arbitration if a party engaged in certain conduct prohibited by the agreement.  The agreement provided for an award of the greater of $500,000 or actual damages.  Additionally, the wife would forfeit interest in a trust as liquidated damages if she engaged in certain behaviors.  The parties agreed to arbitrate any issue of whether a party committed a prohibited behavior, whether the wife violated specified provisions in the agreement, and whether the wife’s interest in the trust would be forfeited as a result of violating provisions of the agreement.  Binding arbitration was to occur within 90 days of notice of a violation.  Pursuant to the Agreement, the losing party would pay the arbitration costs and the other parties’ costs and fees.  The husband’s company was a third party to the divorce and to the agreement. The decree incorporated the agreement.

Arbitration Demand

The husband and his company subsequently demanded arbitration, alleging the wife violated the agreement.  The wife objected and argued the forfeiture and liquidated provisions were unenforceable and that the arbitration clause was therefore also unenforceable.

Continue Reading ›

After rendering a Texas divorce decree, the trial court retains continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce its property division.  Tex. Fam. Code § 9.002.  The court may issue additional orders to enforce the property division. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.006. An order to enforce may help in implementing or clarify the previous order, but it may not make substantive changes to the property division.  Tex. Fam. Code §  9.007.  The court generally has broad discretion to enforce the property division.

In a recent case, a former husband appealed a court order requiring him to sign documents to effectuate the transfer of stocks that were awarded to the wife in the divorce.

The divorce decree awarded the wife all shares of a particular stock owned by the husband or in his name.  It also ordered the husband to appear at a particular law office on or before September 15, 2022 to sign the documents to transfer the shares.

Continue Reading ›

Courts are required to effect a just and right division of the community estate in a Texas divorce.  This division is not limited to assets, but in many cases, the court must also apportion the parties’ debts.  A former husband recently challenged a provision in his divorce decree making his failure to make loan payments enforceable by contempt.

The husband asked the court to divide the estate in a manner it deemed just and right.  The wife indicated she believed they would enter into an agreement for the property division, and, if so, the court to approve the agreement and divide the estate accordingly.  Alternatively, she requested a just and right division.

The parties were not able to reach an agreement.  They had a trial before the associate court.  The husband asked the trial court for a de novo trial.  Following the new trial, the trial court notified the parties it agreed with the property division by the associate trial court. The husband objected to a provision making his failure to make required payments on a loan from the wife’s retirement account punishable by contempt.  He argued the provision violated article I, section 18 of the Texas Constitution.  The trial court ordered the language related to contempt be stricken, but ultimately signed the final divorce decree with that language included.

Continue Reading ›

If a parent does not comply with a Texas custody or child support order, the other parent may seek enforcement of the court order and, in some cases, request the parent be held in contempt.  A father recently challenged an order granting the mother’s motion to enforce the divorce decree.

When the parties divorced, one of their two children was still a minor.  Pursuant to the divorce decree,  the parties were required to equally share health care costs, the cost of a vehicle, and college fund for the minor child.  The decree also ordered the father to pay for the minor child’s phone plan until she finished high school, and then that expense would also be split.  The decree incorporated an agreement incident to divorce that required the mother and father to share the other child’s healthcare costs.

Both parties moved to enforce the decree in 2019, each seeking contempt, or clarification if the court found the decree was not sufficiently specific.  The trial court’s subsequent order required the parties to communicate and exchange expense sharing exclusively through MyFamilyWizard.  The court’s order also clarified that the father was required to pay full cost of the minor child’s phone.

Continue Reading ›

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[.]”

Continue Reading ›

Parents sometimes have difficulty getting their child’s other parent to comply with a Texas custody or visitation order.  If a parent fails to comply with requirements to exchange the child, the other parent may seek enforcement of the court’s order, sometimes through contempt.  In a recent case, a father challenged a court’s contempt order.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the trial court entered a standard possession order in 2012 that set forth where the exchanges were to occur.  When the mother’s possession ended, the exchange occurred at her home.  When the father’s possession ended, it occurred at either his home or the mother’s home, depending upon circumstances set forth in the order.  The trial court signed a modification order on the mother’s motion in March 2017 that changed the exchange location to the police department parking lot.  The modification order also allowed the parties to change the location in writing.  In August 2017, the parties entered a Rule 11 agreement moving the exchange location to a different police department parking lot and the court signed and the court signed an order adopting their agreement.

The mother filed a motion for enforcement by contempt in 2023.  She relied on the original 2012 order and the 2017 modification order. The father moved for a directed verdict because the mother did not plead “the date, the time, and the place of the alleged violations,” but the motion was denied.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information