family code

Ex-Wife Entitled to 50% of Community Portion of Pension Benefits in Texas Divorce

Published on: March 16, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1132277483-300x200 Property division in a Texas divorce is intended to be final, and a court generally is not allowed to change the division set out in the final decree. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.007. The court may, however, issue orders to clarify or enforce the property division set out or incorporated by reference in the decree. Issues related to retirement benefits are often addressed in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) for private employees or a Court Order Acceptable for Processing (“COAP”) for employees of the federal government, which may be incorporated into the decree. Courts may therefore correct or clarify a QDRO or COAP to achieve the property division set out in the decree.

An ex-husband recently challenged an order allowing his ex-wife half of his entire monthly federal pension. The husband started working for the federal government in 1989. The parties got married in 2000 and divorced in 2011.

Language in the decree seemed to award the wife half of the community share of the husband’s federal government pension benefits, but another provision seemed to award her half of all of those benefits. The decree stated the “community portion” of the pension benefits would be identified in a COAP. The court rendered the COAP in January 2012, but it indicated the wife was awarded 50% of all of the federal pension benefits.

Texas Appeals Court Finds Wife Did Not Convert Inheritance to Community Property

Published on: March 2, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

2018_10_agreement-300x165 In Texas, separate property can be converted to community property by a written agreement signed by both spouses that identifies the property to be convert and specified it is being converted to community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 4.203. In a recent case, a former husband challenged the property division in his divorce decree, arguing certain assets had been improperly characterized as the wife’s separate property.

The wife was beneficiary of three irrevocable trusts set up by her grandparents. The income from the trusts was to be distributed to the wife at least annually starting when she turned 21. The trustee was also authorized to distribute principal for the wife’s care, comfort, support, and education if the trustee deemed it necessary. When she turned 32, the trustee had the discretion to distribute the balance. After the wife’s thirty-second birthday, which occurred during the marriage, the trustee terminated the trusts and put the accounts in her name. They were worth about $2.3 million at the time.

The parties hired an estate-planning attorney. They both signed an engagement letter, stating they told the attorney they considered the current assets, specifically including the funds inherited by the wife, to be community property. The trust agreement stated that the trustors contemplated that all assets that would be transferred to the trust would be community property. However, it also included a provision allowing either party to modify, revoke, or terminate the agreement with respect to any of their own separate property held in the trust. They subsequently transferred the assets from the grandparents’ trusts to the new trust account.

Texas Custody Schedule Changed Due to School Absences

Published on: May 2, 2021 | by McClure Law Group

iStock-1252096710 A parent’s behavior may affect their rights to access and possession of their child in a Texas custody case. In a recent case, the trial court’s order provided that the schedule would change if the child had a certain number of unexcused absences or instances of tardiness while in the mother’s care.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the trial court entered a custom possession order (CPO) as part of a modification order at the end of January 2020. Pursuant to the CPO, the father had the right to possession of the child from Wednesday morning to Friday morning each week and from Friday morning to Monday morning every other weekend, and the parents alternated holidays and school breaks. The CPO also provided that the mother’s possession schedule would change to the Standard Possession Schedule if the child had a total of any combination of five unexcused absences and “tardies” from school, as determined by the school, while in the mother’s possession.

Father Moves to Impose Standard Possession Order

The father moved to confirm and clarify the order and requested an injunction in April 2020. He alleged the child had been tardy five days and absent two days during the fall semester of 2019. He asked the court to confirm and clarify that the standard possession schedule was in effect and to grant an injunction.

Texas Appeals Court Finds Property Was Separate Despite Use of Community Funds

Published on: April 25, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

images In a Texas divorce case, property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be community property. A spouse claiming property is their separate property must show that it is separate by clear and convincing evidence. Separate property is generally property that is owned before the marriage, property that the spouse acquired as a gift or inheritance, or property recovered as damages in a personal injury case. Community property is generally property acquired after the marriage that is not characterized as separate property.

In a recent case, a wife challenged the court’s characterization of certain property as the husband’s separate property. The wife filed for divorce. The parties agreed they had married in India in 1976, but disagreed on the date they stopped living together as husband and wife.

Husband and Wife Enter into Settlement – But Leave One Issue for Trial

The case went to trial, but, before trial, the parties entered into a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”). In the MSA, the parties agreed their community property located in India would be divided by Indian courts. The parties agreed to the characterization and division of everything except two pieces of land in India, referred to as the “Fifteen-Cent” property and the “One-and-a-half-Acres” property. The MSA stated they would “defer to characterization and confirmation of separate property” of those two parcels to the trial court.