Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Grandmother Lacked Standing for Visitation

Published on: September 14, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-902725964-300x200 Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about their child’s care, custody, and control. There is a presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interest. A non-parent seeking visitation or custody over a parent’s objection must overcome the fit-parent presumption. They must have evidence of behavior or conduct that will probably result in the child’s health or well-being being significantly impaired. A non-parent seeking custody or visitation must also show that they meet the requirements for standing under Texas family law.

Grandmother Files Custody Suit

A mother recently challenged a court’s judgment awarding visitation to the child’s paternal grandmother. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the paternal grandmother petitioned to be appointed as possessory conservator of the child, but subsequently amended the petition seeking possession and access. She alleged denial of possession and access would significantly impair the child’s health and well-being. Her affidavit stated she was the parent of the child’s father and the child’s father had been incarcerated for more than three months. It further stated that the child lived in her home while the father temporarily had primary care of the child because of the “mother’s instability.” She also stated the father was incarcerated because she had made a report “to protect the child.”

The mother did not file an answer or appear at the remote trial.

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.

Proving Separate Property in a Texas Divorce

Published on: September 6, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-483613578-300x204 Some 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.

Modification vs. Clarification in Texas Custody Cases

Published on: August 15, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

5thingsdivorcecourt_header-300x163 A court may clarify an order in a Texas suit affecting the parent-child relationship if it finds the order lacks sufficient specificity to be enforced through contempt. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421. The court cannot make substantive changes through an order to clarify and such changes are not enforceable. Tex. Fam. Code § 157.423. Substantive changes must be pursued through a modification suit. Generally, to obtain a modification, a parent must show there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances and the modification will be in the child’s best interest.

Mother Appeals Clarification Order

A mother recently challenged a clarification order, arguing it had made a substantive change to the previous order. The parties entered into an agreed order regarding their children in December 2016. The father moved for clarification of language relating to extracurricular activities. The agreed order provided in relevant part that the parents would put each child in a single extracurricular activity at a time and have a written agreement regarding the extracurricular activity. The court granted the motion and revised the language to state that each parent may place each child in an extracurricular activity, but, instead of referencing an agreement, the clarified order provided there would be a written designation of the extracurricular activity.

The mother appealed, arguing the court erred in granting the motion because the language in the agreed order was not ambiguous or erroneous and that the revised language constituted a substantive change.

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. . .”

Texas Spousal Maintenance After 10-Year Marriage

Published on: August 4, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-172302804-195x300 A trial court may order Texas spousal maintenance, sometimes referred to as “spousal support” or “alimony,” if certain criteria are met pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.051.. If the marriage lasted at least 10 years, a court may order spousal maintenance to a spouse who does not have sufficient property or earning ability to provide for their own minimum reasonable needs. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.051(2)(B). A court may also award spousal maintenance to a spouse who does not have sufficient property and is not able to earn sufficient income to provide for their minimum reasonable needs due to their own incapacitating disability or the disability of the parties’ child.

Husband Order to Pay Spousal Maintenance

A husband recently challenged an order requiring him to pay spousal maintenance, arguing the wife had been awarded sufficient property to meet her reasonable minimum needs. The wife petitioned for divorce after nearly thirteen years of marriage. The trial court ordered the husband to pay $2,500 in monthly spousal support for two years and he appealed.

The marriage had lasted for more than 10 years, so the wife was eligible to pursue spousal maintenance if she did not have sufficient property or the ability to earn sufficient income to provide for her minimum reasonable needs. The trial court had awarded her assets worth $830,871.60 and she estimated her expenses to be $6,791 per month.

Texas Child-Support Arrearages

Published on: July 31, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-483611874-300x200 Failure to pay Texas child support as ordered can result in an enforcement action. If the motion for enforcement includes a request for a money judgment for arrearages, the trial court generally may not modify or reduce the amount of the arrearages. In a recent case, a mother challenged a court’s finding there was not an arrearage when the father argued he had shifted the payments from the beginning to the end of the month.

The divorce decree appointed the parents joint managing conservators of their two children with the mother having the right to designate their primary residence. The mother was required to maintain health and dental insurance for the children and the parties were to equally split the healthcare expenses not paid by insurance. The father was ordered to pay $1,122 monthly child support and $451.22 monthly medical child support through the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”). The medical child support was reimbursement for the children’s insurance premiums.

Mother Files Child-Support Enforcement

The mother moved to enforce the child support in September 2020. She sought $1,573.22 in unpaid child support and $311.21 in medical expenses. She also asked for attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court ordered the father to pay $155.83 for medical expenses but denied the mother’s other requests, finding the amount of child-support and medical-support arrearages were $0 as of the date of the hearing.

Texas Modification of Person With the Exclusive Right to Designate Child’s Primary Residence

Published on: July 11, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-839381426-300x200 When a parent seeks modification of Texas custody, they generally must show there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the prior order was rendered and that the change is in the best interest of the children. A parent petitioning to change the designation of the parent with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within one year of the prior order must also attach an affidavit making one of three allegations. The affidavit may allege the child’s current environment may endanger their physical health or significantly impair their emotional development. If the person with the exclusive right to designate the primary resident is seeking or consenting to the modification, the affidavit may allege the modification is in the best interest of the child. Finally, the affidavit may allege that the person with the exclusive right has voluntarily surrendered the child’s primary care and possession for six months or more and that the change is in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.102(a).

In a recent case, a father appealed a summary judgment denying his petition for modification. The parents were named joint managing conservators of the children in the 2014 divorce decree, but neither was given the exclusive right to determine their residence. In 2018, the trial court gave the mother that right, with a geographic restriction.

Father Files Modification Suit

The father petitioned to modify the order, alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances and that the children’s current environment could endanger their health or significantly impair their emotional development. He further alleged the modification would be in the best interest of the children. He also alleged the mother neglected the children.

Texas Appeals Court Holds Paternity Cannot Be Adjudicated After Putative Father’s Death

Published on: July 8, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

While ideally a child’s parentage is determined when they are young, that does not always occur. A Texas appeals court recently considered whether the trial court could adjudicate the parentage of an adult petitioner after the death of the putative father.

Adult Child Files Paternity Suit Against Father’s Estate

An adult petitioner filed suit against his mother, his alleged father, and the independent executor of his alleged father’s estate, seeking adjudication of his parentage and a declaration that he was the alleged father’s biological son and had the rights and privileges of a surviving child. The executor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing a suit to adjudicate parentage cannot be brought after the putative father’s death. The trial court denied both the executor’s and the petitioner’s respective motions for summary judgment.

Trial Court Adjudicates Parentage

At trial, the executor moved for judgment, arguing that suits to adjudicate parentage do not survive the putative father’s death pursuant to the Texas Family Code. The trial court denied the motion and adjudicated the putative father as the petitioner’s father.