Property

Texas Division of Real Estate in Divorce

Published on: December 15, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

property-division-300x110 Property 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.

Evidence Regarding Property Required in Texas Divorce

Published on: November 7, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1214358087-300x169 The division of property in a Texas divorce does not have to be equal, but should be “just and right.” Each party is responsible for providing evidence to show the value of the property so the court can make the division. A Texas appeals court recently considered what happens when parties do not provide information regarding the marital estate.

Conflicting Testimony Regarding Parties’ Relationship at Trial

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband was sixty and the wife was twenty-seven when they met and married. According to the husband, he met the wife on an online dating site and went to Monterrey, Mexico to meet her in person in October or November 2007. After spending time with her that night and the next day, the husband came back to the U.S. The wife denied meeting on a dating site and instead said they met at a hotel bar. They communicated via email and the husband visited the wife in Mexico a few more times. They married in February 2008 in Monterrey. The husband testified they did not have sexual relations or go on a honeymoon. He came back to Texas a few days later and the wife stayed in Mexico.

The husband obtained an attorney to get visas for the wife and her son. The visas were denied after an immigration interview in 2008. The husband claimed he had no further relationship or communications with the wife until late 2017 or early 2018 when she contacted him wanting to come to the U.S. He hired an attorney again. The wife obtained a visa in March 2018 and moved to Texarkana. There were substantial differences in the parties’ testimony regarding their relationship while they lived together and the reasons the wife moved to Dallas in 2018.

Texas Husband Denied Reimbursement for Repairs to Wife’s Property

Published on: October 9, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-178756342-300x199 A spouse in a Texas divorce may have a reimbursement claim if they use their own separate property to fund improvements to the other spouse’s separate property. Likewise, if community funds are used for the benefit of a spouse’s property, the spouse may be ordered to reimburse the community. The party seeking reimbursement must plead and prove the claim, including showing that the funds used were their separate property. Courts must resolve claims for reimbursement using principles of equity.

A husband recently challenged a trial court’s denial of his reimbursement claims. According to the appeals court’s opinion, both parties had significant separate property when they married in 2010. The husband owned one home and the wife owned two. They bought a new house 2014. The husband sold his home and used $141,000 of the proceeds for the new house. The wife sold one of her homes and used $150,000 from that sale on the new home.

Testimony Regarding Husband’s Reimbursement Claim

The husband also paid about $70,000 for a pool at the new house. He claimed the funds were his separate property, but the wife testified she thought he had used community funds.

Texas Wife Awarded Disproportionate Property Division Due to Cruel Treatment

Published on: October 5, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-172302804-195x300 A trial court must effect a “just and right” division of property in a Texas divorce. When a party pleads a fault-based divorce, the court may consider the other’s parties conduct and divide the property disproportionately. A husband recently challenged a disproportionate division.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband petitioned for divorce, and the wife alleged cruel treatment. The trial court found cruel treatment led to the breakup and awarded the wife a disproportionate property division and the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence.

The husband appealed the disproportionate property division and the custody determination.

Mischaracterization of Property in Texas Divorce

Published on: September 10, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

property-division-300x110 The 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.

Property Owned by Business Entity in Texas Divorce

Published on: August 12, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-483613578-300x204 Business entities and business property can complicate the property division in a Texas divorce. Property owned by a business entity is not considered either separate or community property of the spouses, but instead belongs to the entity. In a recent case, a husband challenged the trial court’s denial of his request for reimbursement for mortgage payments he made.

Wife Enforces Property Division

The wife petitioned for enforcement of the property division several months after the final decree was signed. The husband filed a counter-petition also seeking enforcement of the property division, alleging each party owned an undivided 50% share in property identified as “The Terraces.” The husband alleged he had paid $10,000 on the property’s delinquent mortgage. He requested an accounting to determine each party’s obligation and actual payments related to the property and a money judgment for what the wife had not paid. Additionally, he sought an order requiring the wife to pay her share of future mortgage payments and costs.

The court entered an enforcement order in November 2018 that determined the husband’s claims with regard to The Terrace were not ripe because the property had not been sold. After the approved sale in January 2020, the husband filed an amended motion for reimbursement and enforcement of property division. The trial court denied his requests and the husband ultimately appealed.

Invited Error in Texas Divorce Case

Published on: August 8, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1270267953-300x200 Even 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. . .”

Discrepancies Between Texas Divorce Decree and Property-Division Agreement

Published on: June 13, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1125625723-300x200 When 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.

Life Insurance and Texas Divorce

Published on: May 8, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

2018_10_agreement-300x165 People 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.

Texas Divorce Abated Upon Husband’s Death

Published on: March 20, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1270267953-300x200 When a party in a Texas civil lawsuit dies, the case may proceed if the cause of action survives the death of the party. Tex.R.Civ.P. 150. Generally, when the defendant in Texas civil lawsuit dies, the plaintiff may petition for a “scire facias” to require the administrator, executor, or heir to defend the lawsuit. Tex. R. Civ. P. 152. Pursuant to case law, however, Texas divorce cases are not subject to this rule because they are personal actions that do not survive the death of a party if judgment has not yet been rendered. Generally, heirs do not take over a divorce case prior to final judgment. Instead the divorce case abates when a party dies. This means the court will dismiss the case.

Husband Dies During Divorce Suit

A wife recently challenged a trial court’s determination that her divorce petition abated upon her husband’s death. The parties had married for about seven years when they divorced in 2000. In 2018, they got married again. The parties did not have any children together, but the husband had children from a previous marriage. The wife petitioned for divorce in May of 2020. The husband filed an answer, but passed away the following January. The wife sought to have the husband’s children defend the divorce on the husband’s behalf as his heirs.

The trial court found it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed, because a divorce petition, as a personal action, abates upon the death of either party. A judgment rendered by a court without subject-matter jurisdiction is void.