Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Public reporting indicates that actress Lori Loughlin sold a luxury Palm Desert property after announcing her intention to divorce Mossimo Giannulli in 2025. There was no public dispute between Loughlin and Giannulli over the sale of their home, which is notable because our attorneys often see disputes over high-value real estate—whether it should be sold, retained, or awarded to one spouse. These questions frequently fuel property division litigation in Texas divorces.

Texas is a community property state, and trial courts must divide community property in a manner that is “just and right.” A ‘just and right’ division requires the trial court to divide the marital estate equitably. “Just and right”, as established in a Supreme Court of Texas case, Murff v. Murff, does not always mean an equal division, particularly in high-net-worth cases involving complex assets. (Citation: Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981).)

Our Texas family law attorneys follow a multi-step process to determine how real estate should be divided upon divorce, and to ensure the fair division of real estate (and other assets) for our clients.

Amy Schumer and Chris Fischer have announced on social media that they are divorcing after seven years of marriage. Let’s evaluate the dissolution of this marriage from the perspective of a family law attorney.

Even prior to the marriage, Schumer was an internationally famous comedian. Fischer is successful in his own field as a James Beard Foundation Award-winning chef, though Schumer’s net worth dwarfs Fischer’s at the time of writing. These facts matter when weighing the division of assets and debts, though a more penetrating accounting would be necessary.

It’s unclear whether the couple signed any pre- or post-marital agreements, as they never publicly commented on this facet of their relationship. This question piques our interest because pre-marital agreements, post-marital agreements, and pre-divorce planning simply carry higher stakes in terminations involving high-income spouses with significant assets (and possibly debts) to gain or lose.

Texas trial courts have broad discretion in conservatorship decisions, particularly when the record reflects that the ongoing conflict between parents isn’t in the best interests of the involved children. In a recent case, the Third Court of Appeals reaffirmed that discretion by upholding a conservatorship ruling despite one parent’s objections to the conduct of the proceedings.

The case involved a contested conservatorship proceeding between a separating husband and wife, co-parents of two young children. Throughout their legal battle, the trial court issued multiple temporary orders addressing conservatorship and possession of the children.

Initially, both parents were named temporary joint managing conservators, but the husband was granted the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence. As the parents continued to have challenges, later court orders imposed restrictions on the wife’s possession and visitation rights.

The Supreme Court of Texas has weighed in on the thorny question of when a default divorce judgment should be undone. In a recent case, a husband filed for divorce and sought to serve his wife with divorce papers. At the time, the wife was residing at her parents’ house with their child. After attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, the trial court authorized service by alternative means.

Despite the alternative service, the wife remained unaware that she had been served and did not file an answer. The trial court entered a default divorce decree, dividing the parties’ property.

Motion for New Trial

Parents are obligated to support their minor children and cannot avoid their obligation through voluntary unemployment or underemployment.  If a parent’s actual income is significantly less than what they could earn due to intentional unemployment or underemployment, the court may apply the Texas support guidelines to their earning potential.  Once the obligor has provided proof of his current wages, the obligee has the burden of showing intentional unemployment or underemployment.  If they do so, the burden then shifts back to the obligor for rebuttal.  A father recently challenged a court’s findings that he was underemployed and that it was in the child’s best interest to apply the child support guidelines to his earning potential.

The father registered a New York child support order in Texas and moved to modify the parent-child relationship.  The order required the father to pay child support of $1,437.44 and medical support of $107.03 each month.  He requested a reduction to $377, retroactive to the date he petitioned to reduce his arrearages.

The mother filed a motion to enforce, seeking contempt against the father for failure to pay the support and the arrearages. The court held a hearing and confirmed $85,858.87 in child support arrearages and $8,621.66 in medical support arrearages, with offsets, resulting in a total of $89,247.93.  The trial court awarded the mother attorney’s fees and costs.

Continue Reading ›

During its most recent session, Texas lawmakers adopted and passed several amendments and updates to the Texas Family Code, which were then formally signed into law by the Governor.

These revisions and additions to the Texas Family Code impact numerous areas of family law, including but not limited to: (1) suits for the dissolution of marriage; (2) suits affecting the parent-child relationship; (3) protective orders; and (4) discovery in cases filed under the Texas Family Code.

Ranging from modifications to elements necessary to prove a claim, clarifications to existing codified law, and the removal of automatically triggered disclosure requirements, family law practitioners throughout the State of Texas should familiarize themselves with these changes and how such changes impact their practice.

iStock-1033856542-300x200When a mother is married at the time of her child’s birth, the husband is generally presumed to be the father under Texas family law. There are two ways to rebut the presumption: with a proceeding to adjudicate parentage or with the filing of a denial of paternity along with the filing of an acknowledgement of paternity by another person.  Suits to adjudicate parentage of a child with a presumed father generally must be brought by the child’s fourth birthday. There is an exception, however if the mother and presumed father did not live together or engage in sexual intercourse at the probable time of the child’s conception.  There is also an exception if the presumed father mistakenly believed he was the biological father based on misrepresentations. Tex. Fam. Code § 160.607.

Alleged Father Challenges Adjudication of Paternity

An alleged father recently challenged a trial court’s determination that his adjudication of parentage case was time-barred.  According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the alleged father petitioned to adjudicate parentage of two children, one born in 2014 and the other in 2015.  The mother was married to another man when the children were born.

The mother moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged father’s suit was time-barred and none of the exceptions that toll the statute of limitations for adjudication of parentage applied.  She attached her own affidavit and an affidavit from her then husband as summary judgment evidence.  Her motion was granted.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-483613578-300x204Some people may assume that property held in only one spouse’s name is that spouse’s separate property, but that is not necessarily the case.  In Texas, property’s character is determined based on when and how it is acquired.  Additionally, in a Texas divorce, property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be community property.

In a recent case, a husband challenged a court’s characterization of certain property held in his name as community property and awarding it to the wife.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties acquired multiple pieces of real estate, some in both their names and some in only the name of the husband, while they were married. When they divorced, the three properties that were the subject of the appeal, referred to by the court as the “Three Properties,” were held by the husband, but the wife alleged they were the community property.

Continue Reading ›

iStock-1046559368-300x225
On December 23, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court finalized its amendments to the discovery rules set forth in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The changes to the discovery rules will undoubtedly impact family law cases filed on or after January 1, 2021.

Of the amendments, the mandate that certain pretrial, expert, and initial disclosures be made under Rules 194 and 195, will require the compilation and exchange of documents and information early in the litigation phase and without the necessity of a formal request from the opposing party. While this early exchange of information may lead to resolution and settlement of issues and claims, failure to respond in accordance with the Rules may result in exclusion of evidence as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6.

In order to preserve your claims and ability to present evidence, it is imperative that you comply with the amendments to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. For convenience, please find the amended discovery rules below.

On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a ruling that is sure to have a major impact on future non-parent custody cases in the state of Texas. In the case of In re C.J.C., the Supreme Court of Texas found that the presumption that it is in the best interest of a child to award possession to a fit parent versus a non-parent extends to modification cases.[1] This decision is certain to be seen as a major win for parents, as the Court reinforced the long-held notion that in most cases, a parent having custody of their child is best for the child.

The case involved grandparents of the child and the boyfriend of the child’s deceased mother attempting to modify the possession of the child and gain at least some court-ordered possession from the child’s father. The trial court found that the boyfriend was entitled to some possession and even some rights, such as the right to consent to emergency medical decisions.[2] The child’s father appealed this decision. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information