Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Protective Order as a Result of Family Violence During Texas Divorce

Published on: October 9, 2017 | by McClure Law Group

A recent Texas divorce appeal arose after a wife filed for a protective order against her husband. She asked for the protective order after her husband and her father had a physical fight at a pet cemetery when the group was trying to bury a dead family dog. Divorce proceedings had commenced by then.

At the graveyard were the husband and wife, their children, the wife’s father, and his wife. While the husband and father were digging with their shovels, the father’s shovel touched the husband’s scalp. He apologized to the husband and said it was an accident. However, the father didn’t believe the apology, and a fight broke out. The father was hit and kicked by his son-in-law, who later claimed he acted in self-defense. The trial judge determined that the husband had perpetrated family violence and would likely do so again. The wife was awarded a protective order and attorney’s fees.

The husband argued that there wasn’t enough legal or factual evidence to support the order and appealed. He argued it should be reversed. The appellate court explained it would need to decide whether the evidence submitted would allow a reasonable fact finder to get to the same conclusion. If it would, the evidence was enough to support the finding. In looking at whether the evidence was factually sufficient, it didn’t need to defer to the evidence that supported the decision. Instead, it had to consider all of the evidence in a neutral light and decide whether the finding cut so far against the preponderance of evidence as to be manifestly unjust or wrong.

Deviation from Standard Possession Order in Texas

Published on: October 2, 2017 | by Kelly McClure

It is crucial to retain an experienced Texas child custody attorney and obtain a clear record at the lower court level. In a recent Texas appellate decision, a mother appealed from a court’s decision in a lawsuit to modify the parent-child relationship. She argued that she and the father shouldn’t have been named joint managing conservators with her access being supervised. She also argued that the access the trial court gave was below the minimum access established by the Family Code’s standard possession order. She further argued that evidence wasn’t identified.

The case arose when a child’s parents divorced in 2011. The court appointed the parents as joint managing conservators. The mother had the right to decide the primary residence of the child, while the father simply had the right to visit. Three years later, the father petitioned for a modification, wanting the exclusive right to decide the child’s primary residence. He asked the court to deny the mother access or that her visits be supervised on the grounds that she physically abused the child, smoked and drank too much around the child, and moved around the city and had pulled the child out of school multiple times. The father also claimed the child was terrified of the mother’s new husband.

The lower court granted the father’s request. The mother appealed. She didn’t file a reporter’s record or follow the proper procedure, but she presumed the proof submitted supported the order. The appellate court explained that the child’s best interest is the lower court’s main consideration when deciding conservatorship under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002. The lower court can modify possession or access only when it’s in the child’s best interests, and the child’s circumstances have materially and substantially changed.

Family Violence Exception and Texas Mediated Settlement Agreements

Published on: October 1, 2017 | by Kelly McClure

In a recent Texas child support case, a mother appealed after the trial court enforced a mediated settlement agreement. She argued it was an error to enforce it because: (1) it included a child support provision that violated public policy, (2) the mother took back her consent before it was approved, and (3) she wasn’t allowed to give evidence to bolster her family violence exception argument.

The case arose several years after a divorce. The parents mediated the matter and signed an irrevocable mediated settlement agreement, in which they agreed to different terms related to child support. The mediated settlement agreement included a provision under which there would be a limited standstill period, during which nobody would ask for child support increases.

The couple had signed the agreement and filed it. The agreement stated that it was meant to be a full and final settlement and that the parents had voluntarily signed it.

Texas Child Support Modification Deviates from Statutory Guidelines

Published on: September 30, 2017 | by Kelly McClure

In a recent Texas appellate case, the lower court’s SAPCR order granting a child support modification for the mother was appealed by the father. The father argued the trial court shouldn’t have set the periodic child support obligation to be more than the statutory child support guidelines provided and found a material and substantial change in circumstances affecting either the parents or the kids that would warrant a modification.

The mother and father got divorced in 2013 after coming to a mediated settlement agreement. They were named joint managing conservators of their kids. The father was allowed to have possession for certain periods, and he had to pay the mother monthly child support until they reached 18 years old. There were two kids.

The father sought relief regarding one of the kids when she turned 18. However, he didn’t pursue it at the time of trial. The mother counter-petitioned, asking to modify the parent-child relationship and asking for child support that exceeded the statutory guideline for the other child.

Gift Given Before Texas Marriage

Published on: September 29, 2017 | by Kelly McClure

In a recent Texas property division decision, an ex-husband tried to reverse a property distribution order issued as part of a divorce. The couple married in 2012, after the husband had bought a tractor and multiple attachments from a dealership. The husband had signed a five-year note to finance a portion of the purchase price of the equipment. The couple separated in 2014 when the wife sued him for divorce.

They both claimed that they owned certain items of property before marrying and that these should be considered separate property. The husband took issue with the court’s treatment of the tractor he’d bought, as well as the characterization of his bonus, received in May 2014 as community property. He argued that he earned the bonus based on a project that started before his marriage.

At trial, the wife gave the court an inventory of community property and her separate property. She listed the tractor as an asset over which she and her husband had a dispute. She said that the husband gave her the tractor as a gift before they married. Documents showed he’d bought the tractor close to a year before marriage, and he made all of the monthly payments since the sale.

Temporary Spousal Maintenance in Texas

Published on: September 25, 2017 | by Kelly McClure

In a recent Texas spousal maintenance case, a husband appealed from a final divorce decree. He claimed the court made a mistake by awarding the wife $1,500 in spousal maintenance, awarding temporary spousal support of $2,500 each month, ordering him to pay $20,000 in delinquent temporary spousal support payments, failing to issue appropriate factual and legal findings, and failing to award him property he believed was solely his separate property.

In 2014, the parties agreed in court that the husband would pay the wife $2,500 each month before the divorce as temporary alimony. The wife asked for the entry of an order reflecting that. However, the husband filed a proposed rule 11 agreement, claiming an error in calculating his income. He asked for a modification of the agreement.

Another hearing was held related to the temporary orders. There, the husband’s attorney told the court that there had been an error in the first agreement. The wife’s attorney said he understood that the husband’s income was around $5,000. The husband’s attorney claimed he’d withdrawn money from his 401K, and the monthly income of about $1,400 wouldn’t be available.

Texas Final Divorce Decree Includes Error But Stands

Published on: September 4, 2017 | by Francesca Blackard

In a recent Texas divorce case, the plaintiff appealed from a trial court order related to property division in a divorce. The case arose when a couple signed a mediated settlement agreement that indicated a particular brokerage account would be awarded to the wife. The husband’s attorney drafted the divorce decree, and both parties signed it. Both parties had the opportunity to review the decree and signed it freely. The final divorce decree awarded the brokerage account to the husband, but it otherwise matched the mediated settlement agreement.

The husband’s attorney proved up the divorce, and the decree was signed by the lower court. The wife’s attorney asked the husband’s attorney for the file-stamped copy of the final decree, but it wasn’t provided.

After the expiration of the court’s plenary power, the wife went to the courthouse and procured a copy of the decree. She realized that it awarded the brokerage account to her ex-husband. When the ex-husband refused to agree that the account was hers, she filed a petition for a bill of review.

Husband Asks for Marriage to be Declared Void in Texas

Published on: August 21, 2017 | by McClure Law Group

In a recent Texas divorce case, a husband appealed from a divorce decree. He and his wife married in 2014, and they had a son in the same year. In the following year, he petitioned the court to declare that their marriage was void, claiming that his wife’s prior marriage in Eritrea had never been properly concluded. Therefore, he argued, their marriage was void. She counter-petitioned for divorce.

The trial was bifurcated such that the court looked at whether the marriage was valid in one proceeding and decided the divorce-related concerns in a separate, later proceeding. During the first proceeding, the wife testified she married an Italian citizen in Eritrea in 2002, and she had two kids with him. They were legally separated in Italy, and her ex-husband was ordered to pay her child support. She also filed for divorce in Eritrea in 2013. The record included a decree from Eritrea in which the divorce was stated to be in 2013. The ex-husband didn’t appear in court, but a divorce was decreed, and the wife believed she was properly divorced.

The husband showed that the Italian legal proceedings were ongoing in 2013. The wife testified that the Italian proceedings were to get legally separated, but she’d asked for the divorce in Eritrea. Neither the wife nor the husband submitted information about Italian or Eritrean divorce law. At the end of the first proceeding, the husband’s request that his marriage be declared void was denied.

Death Penalty Sanctions in a Texas Divorce

Published on: August 5, 2017 | by Brandon Joseph

In a recent Texas divorce case, the lower court imposed so-called “death penalty sanctions” against the wife for litigation misconduct. The wife sued for divorce in 2016, and the husband counter-petitioned in the following month. In the counter-petition, the husband pled claims of misapplication of community property, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and forgery.

The wife didn’t cooperate with written or oral discovery, causing the husband to ask for sanctions. He also filed a motion to compel discovery, claiming she hadn’t responded to multiple requests for written discovery and had refused to answer questions at her deposition. The lower court set a hearing but, without holding the hearing, said it would consider the motion for sanctions. It ordered the wife to respond to the husband’s discovery requests. The husband and wife agreed to an order that addressed the motions for sanctions. It found the wife had again failed to answer the written discovery and ordered her to answer. She and her husband signed the agreed order.

Nonetheless, the wife didn’t answer the discovery requests, and he again moved for sanctions. He said she hadn’t provided answers to interrogatories. He claimed that she’d produced some documents, but they weren’t identified or categorized as responses to particular requests. He also claimed she hadn’t given an accounting she’d been ordered to give and hadn’t answered the deposition questions she’d previously refused to answer. He asked for severe sanctions, including a default judgment against her.

Post-Majority Expenses in Texas Divorce Agreements

Published on: August 2, 2017 | by Francesca Blackard

In a recent Texas appeal, a father appealed a judgment that awarded the mother post-majority expenses for their child. The case arose from the parents entering into an agreed final decree of divorce and settlement affecting the parent-child relationship. There was a section titled “college education.” In this provision, the parties agreed that the father would pay 60% of the expenses required for their kids to enroll at and attend a public or private college, university, or graduate school as long as the kid remained enrolled in a course of study leading to a degree. The expenses were to include tuition, room and board, books, and other incidental fees. The father was to pay the school directly or reimburse the mother for any payments she made over her 40% share.

The college education provision wasn’t a part of the sections on property distribution or child support in the agreement. The parents signed the decree, thereby agreeing to all of its provisions.

In 2015, the mother sued to enforce the child support order, asking for reimbursement for health expenses and insurance premiums, in addition to college expenses. She later filed amended motions. The father filed an answer, asserting she wasn’t entitled to post-majority support, since she didn’t ask for contractual relief. He argued that the only relief sought was enforcement, rather than breach of contract.