Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
While ideally, parties to a Texas divorce can resolve matters amicably, some high net worth divorces can lead to years of ongoing litigation. In a recent case, a former husband appealed an order requiring him to pay the former wife $100,000. This appeal was the third appeal arising from the parties’ 2019 divorce.
Both parties had challenged the property division in the original divorce decree. In the first appeal, the appeals court concluded the trial court had mischaracterized certain property, with a difference of more than $1 million to the ex-wife. The appeals court therefore concluded that a mischaracterization of that amount affected the just and right division of the community estate and remanded for a new property division.
The ex-husband appealed the second decree, arguing that there should have been a new trial on remand because several of the properties had changed form since the original decree or no longer existed. He argued the trial court erred when it refused to consider evidence of changes in the property after the divorce. The appeals court rejected this argument, noting that the community assets are generally valued as of the date of the divorce. The trial court could have reasonably determined that the changes could later be addressed in an enforcement proceeding. The appeals court affirmed the 2023 decree.
Enforcement Motion
The ex-wife petitioned for enforcement in September 2023 while the second appeal was pending. She alleged the ex-husband had violated the property division and sought a receivership and a turnover order, in addition to contempt.
The ex-wife alleged the ex-husband failed to pay her $100,000 as required by the final divorce decree. The decree required him to pay her upon entry of the final divorce decree for waste to the residence while the divorce was pending. The ex-wife asked the court to order him to pay the $100,000. She also filed a “motion for emergency funds,” again requesting payment of the $100,000 for repairs to the residence.
The trial court granted the motion following a non-evidentiary hearing and ordered that the $100,000 by paid to the ex-wife by September 13, 2024.
The Ex-husband’s Appeal
The ex-husband appealed, arguing there was no evidence supporting the order because the court had not held an evidentiary hearing.
The appeals court, however, dismissed this third appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The ex-husband argued the appeals court had jurisdiction because the order functioned as other a temporary injunction or a final order. The appeals court pointed out, however, that the order in this case was a post-judgment order that required the ex-husband to comply with the divorce decree. It was not a preliminary determination the claims had merits as in a temporary injunction because the merits in this case had already been decided. The appeals court concluded the order did not operate as a temporary injunction. The appeals court therefore did not have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.
The appeals court also concluded the order was not a final order. The ex-husband argued that the presumption of finality of judgments after a trial on the merits applied. The appeals court rejected this argument because the order did not follow a trial on the merits. The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing. The appeals court concluded it was a hearing on pending motions and not a trial on the merits.
Concluding the presumption did not apply, the appeals court instead applied the Lehmann test. Pursuant to the Lehmann test, an order that does not follow a trial is final if it clearly states “it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties” or “actually disposes of all claims and parties than before the court. . .” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
The appeals court concluded the order did not meet this test. It did not dispose of all of the ex-wife’s enforcement requests, and therefore did not dispose of all claims before the court. Additionally, it did not include an indicia of finality. It therefore was not a final judgment.
The appeals court determined the order was not appealable and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Seek Legal Representation
According to the opinion in the first appeal, the ex-wife petitioned for divorce in 2011, the first decree was finally issued in 2019, and the appeals court filed its opinion in the third appeal on October 1, 2025. The parties had a complex estate involving business interests and real estate investments. Even if you do not anticipate contentiousness in your high net worth divorce, a knowledgeable Texas divorce attorney can advise you on your rights and options. Set up a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.