Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
Tex. Fam. Code § 6.001 allows a court to “grant divorce without regard to fault” if it finds the marriage has become insupportable without “any reasonable expectation of reconciliation. A court may also grant a divorce in favor of one spouse if it finds cruel treatment or adultery by the other spouse. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 6.002 – 6.003. In a recent case, a former wife appealed the divorce decree granting divorce based on insupportability when she argued she had presented sufficient evidence of her husband’s cruel treatment of her. She also challenged the court’s denial of her request for spousal maintenance.
According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got married in March 2019 and separated about a year later. The wife accused the husband of choking her and he was arrested. An emergency order of protection prohibited him from going within 200 yards of the parties’ home. A district court ultimately entered a final protective order and found the husband had “committed family violence.” Due to that order, the wife had exclusive use of the home and the husband was ordered to pay the expenses for the home in addition to paying the wife monthly support.
The wife petitioned for divorce. She asserted insupportability and cruelty as alternative grounds for the divorce.
At trial, the wife testified the husband had shoved her and choked her. She went to the doctor the next day and presented her medical records as evidence. The doctor noted “swelling” and “bruising and laryngeal trauma from strangulation.”
The husband denied choking the wife, but later invoked his Fifth Amendment right.
The wife testified she was not gainfully employed due to her disabilities. She said she was living with her brother and sister-in-law, who were supporting her financially. She said she had $1,407.09 in monthly expenses.
The husband argued he should not have to pay spousal maintenance, partly because he had already provided support while the divorce was pending.
In its letter ruling, the court noted that the criminal matter related to the choking allegation was still pending and there were no other domestic violence incidents presented. The court found there was no evidence of cruelty or domestic violence. The court found the marriage was insupportable. The court did not order any spousal support, finding “the Husband has extended well over sufficient funds in support. . .”
The court entered a final divorce decree. Neither party formally requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the wife challenged the findings and conclusions stated in the letter ruling in a motion for a new trial. It was overruled by operation of law and the wife appealed.
Grounds for Divorce
The wife argued the trial court abused its discretion when it did not grant the divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The appeals court agreed that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of cruelty. It pointed out, however, that the wife had pleaded insupportability as a ground for divorce. The appeals court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the insupportability finding and the wife had not challenged the sufficiency of that evidence. The appeals court pointed to the wife’s testimony about the husband’s changed personality, excessive drinking, lack of communication, and getting upset “about trivial things.” She also testified they started sleeping apart two months after the separation. They were in marriage counseling before the separation. The appeals court determined the record supported both insupportability and cruelty as grounds for the divorce. The trial court, therefore had discretion to decide the ground for the divorce and the appeals court deferred to that discretion. Previous case law has held that a trial court has discretion and is not required to grant divorce based on cruel treatment if there is evidence of cruelty. The court has discretion to grant a divorce based on insupportability even if there is evidence supporting a finding of a fault-based reason for the divorce.
Spousal Maintenance
The wife also argued the court abused its discretion in denying her spousal maintenance. She argued she was unable to earn sufficient income for her minimum reasonable needs due to incapacitating physical or mental disability. She argued the court based its denial on an improper legal standard because the amount of support she received pursuant to the temporary orders should not have been considered in the court’s decision regarding maintenance after the divorce.
A court may only award spousal maintenance to a spouse who will lack sufficient property to provide for their minimum reasonable needs. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051. The appeals court noted that this is where the trial court erred in its analysis. The trial court denied the maintenance request because it found the husband had “extended well over sufficient funds in support. . . “ The appeals court noted the amount of temporary support was immaterial to the issue. The trial court instead should have determined if the wife would lack sufficient property to provide for her minimum reasonable needs.
The appeals court distinguished between temporary support, intended to provide support to a financially dependent spouse while the divorce case is pending, and spousal maintenance, which addresses the needs of the spouse after the divorce. The appeals court acknowledged that temporary support may be relevant to the property division, but found no authority supporting denial of spousal maintenance because of temporary support.
The appeals court pointed out the trial court had not awarded temporary spousal support in this case. Instead, the District Court that granted the protection order found the husband “committed family violence” and granted the wife the exclusive use of the marital home for a period of time and ordered the husband to temporarily support her by making monthly payments and covering the expenses.
The appeals court also noted the husband’s income at that time was at least $123,000 per year, while the wife had no income. September 2020 was the last monthly payment the husband made. He paid the wife’s moving expenses the following month. He admitted he had not supported the wife financially, other than keeping her on his health insurance, after that time while the divorce was pending. Therefore, the temporary support stopped in October 2020. The divorce was not granted until July 2023.
The appeals court reversed and remanded the spousal maintenance claim, directing the trial court to apply the appropriate legal standard and determine if the wife was eligible for spousal maintenance, and if so the nature, amount and duration.
Contact a Dallas Divorce Lawyer
A finding of cruel treatment, adultery, or another fault-based reason for divorce can affect the property division in a divorce. Spousal maintenance is only available in limited circumstances, but may be an issue where one spouse has a significantly higher income and more assets than the other. If you are facing a high net worth divorce and would like to know if you (or your spouse) are eligible for spousal maintenance, a skilled Texas family law attorney can help. Schedule a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.