Enforcement

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Post-Divorce Enforcement/Clarification Order

Published on: July 17, 2023 | by Kelly McClure

A Texas divorce decree that is final and unambiguous and addresses all of the marital property may not be re-litigated. The court may, however, enforce the property division or enter a clarifying order if the decree is ambiguous. The trial court may not, however, amend, modify or change the substantive property division once its plenary power has expired. A husband recently challenged an enforcement/clarification order requiring him to sign certain documents and extending the time the wife had to refinance the home.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got divorced in August 2021. Pursuant to the agreed judgment, the wife was awarded the marital home, contingent on refinancing. She was required to pay the husband $75,000 within 15 days of refinancing the note. If she failed to refinance by February 1, 2022, then the home was to be listed with a real estate broker with experience in the area and sold at a mutually agreed-upon priced. The wife would keep 52% of the net proceeds and the husband would get the other 48%.

The wife was ordered to execute a deed of trust to secure owelty of partition and a lien note. The husband was ordered to execute a warranty deed. These documents were to be signed by 5:00 p.m. on the date the trial court signed the agreed divorce decree.

Dormancy of Texas Divorce Judgment Calculated From Date Payment Obligation Is Triggered

Published on: December 23, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1187184203-300x200 TEX. 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.

Condition Precedent to Receiving Contractual Support Payments in Texas Divorce Agreement

Published on: April 24, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1125625723-300x200 When parties to a Texas divorce reach an agreement, the agreement may place conditions on certain obligations. A “condition precedent” is something that must occur before a party has a right to performance of an obligation by the other party. In a recent case, a mother challenged a trial court’s finding she had not met the condition precedent to receive certain payments from the father.

In the final divorce decree, the trial court approved and incorporated the parties’ Agreement Incident to Divorce (“AID”). The parties agreed the father would pay $11,500 in monthly Contract Support Payments to the mother to provide her and the two children an “alternative lifestyle.” They would travel and live abroad so the children could learn other languages and cultures. The mother agreed to maintain this lifestyle and spend the Contract Support Payments to support it as a condition precedent to receiving the payments. The AID also included a provision that the father could send a notice if the mother failed to comply with a material term or condition. If she failed to cure the breach within 30 days, the Contract Support Payments would be abated until she complied.

Father Grows Concerned About Children’s Upbringing

The mother and children traveled within the U.S. and several countries abroad until July 2018. The father grew concerned about the children’s lack of structured education and their health and hygiene by the summer of 2018.

Enforcement of High Net Worth Texas Divorce

Published on: February 20, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1139699594-300x200 When a couple has complex and high-value assets, the actions required to achieve the property division may drag out long after their Texas divorce. The parties may need to refinance or liquidate certain assets. These ongoing transactions can result in additional disputes and possibly enforcement actions by one or sometimes both parties.

A husband recently challenged a court’s order in favor of the wife in dualling enforcement motions. The trial court entered an Agreed Final Decree of Divorce in March 2019. The decree awarded the wife a business, but required her to pay the husband a $770,000 equalization judgment secured by her primary residence and rental properties. She was also ordered to make monthly payments with 3% interest starting in February 2019. She defaulted in 2020, triggering an acceleration clause.

The decree also addressed the parties’ 2017 tax return and liability. The wife would pay $60,000 of the approximate $199,000 liability and any penalties and interest “arising solely out of the failure to previously make the $60,000 payment to the Internal Revenue Service.” The parties would split the remaining tax liability, penalties, and interest equally. The wife consented to filing the tax return in June of 2019, but the husband asked to review certain documents before he consented. There was evidence he received the documents in the summer of 2020 and notified the wife and accountant he had identified additional medical expenses within a week of receipt. He ultimately gave his consent to file the day before the enforcement hearing.