Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
The purpose of Texas spousal maintenance is to give temporary support to a spouse whose ability to provide for their own needs has been diminished and who does not have sufficient assets to support themselves. Spousal maintenance may be ordered if the spouse meets certain statutory criteria. For a marriage that has lasted at least 10 years, the court may award maintenance if the spouse has insufficient property and lacks the ability to earn sufficient income to provide for their minimum reasonable needs. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051(2)(B). Texas has a rebuttable presumption against maintenance unless the spouse has been diligent in earning sufficient income or developing skills to do so while separated and while the divorce is pending. Tex. Fam. Code . § 8.053(a). If the spouse rebuts the presumption, the trial court considers certain statutory factors in determining any maintenance award. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.052. A spousal maintenance award generally cannot exceed the lesser of $5,000 or 20% of the spouse’s average gross monthly income. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.055. A former husband recently challenged a spousal maintenance award to his former wife of over 30 years.
The parties married in 1988. The husband was a real-estate broker and ordained minister. He admitted his pornography addiction and past adultery to the wife in February 2023. The wife subsequently moved in with their daughter.
The wife petitioned for divorce in September 2023 on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. She requested a disproportionate share of the marital estate and spousal maintenance.
She had done the accounting and paperwork for the real estate business since 2012. There was evidence she often worked long hours but did not receive a salary.
The wife requested 75% of the community property and the husband requested an equal division.
A licensed professional counselor testified as the wife’s expert. She diagnosed the wife with “[p]ost-traumatic stress disorder with complex trauma and major depressive” disorder after she learned of her husband’s infidelity. The counselor testified returning to work in real estate would be “extremely difficult” because it was a “primary trigger” for the wife’s trauma. She further testified her age and “complex trauma” would make it difficult to work in any field. She testified she did not have enough information to opine on when the wife might be fit to work.
The parties’ son-in-law testified the wife had been “intelligent and capable,” but he did not think she could go back to work. He testified that she now had difficulty with concentration and focus. He testified that simple questions and tasks now often caused her “extreme anxiety. . .” and that she had panic attacks.
The wife testified she stopped working as a teacher in 1991 to homeschool the children. She had worked as a financial assistant at one point, but did not have any reported income since 2014. She testified she had provided 70% of the labor for the real estate business but never received a salary.
The wife further testified she did not have “the clarity of mind” to work anymore. She wanted to buy a home, but could not obtain employment to meet her minimum reasonable needs. She said she had not applied for any jobs and had not sought any training or education.
The husband intended to keep working, but said the real estate market was “slow.” He said sale of their properties would result in about $1.6 million to pay off the mortgages. The income from the real estate business had been reported under the husband’s Social Security number, so his monthly projected retirement benefits ranged between $1,999 and $3,961. He said he could not live on the lower end of his range and might be able to live on the higher end. The wife’s projected benefits were between $489 and $862.
The trial court granted divorce based on adultery and cruelty and awarded the wife a disproportionate share of the marital estate. The court awarded the husband the marital real estate business, as previously agreed by the parties. The decree ordered the sale of the home and rental properties, with the wife receiving 65% of the net proceeds. The court also awarded the wife 65% of other community assets, including various accounts. The court found the wife did not have the ability to earn sufficient income to meet her minimum reasonable needs and awarded her spousal maintenance of $2,500 per month for 8 years.
The husband appealed, arguing the wife had not established the amount needed to meet her minimum reasonable needs and that the amount of the award exceeded 20% of his gross income.
Minimum Reasonable Needs
The wife wanted to purchase a home. There was no evidence of what that mortgage would be, but there was evidence the marital home’s mortgage was $1,928.28. The husband provided a list of expenses, including expenses related to the home. From that list, the court could have determined reasonable amounts for yard maintenance, utilities, and food. The wife paid $2,100 for the parties’ health insurance each month, so the court could have determined half that amount would be reasonable for her insurance. The wife also had provided three months of credit card statements, which reflected an average of $2,481 per month. The wife’s expenses for housing, food, utilities, and medical expenses could reasonably be calculated to exceed $3,120 per month. She had testified she did not believe she could live on $1,950 per month, and the husband had also testified he could not live on $1,999 per month. The trial court, therefore, could have reasonably concluded that her minimum needs were at least $2,500.
The husband argued she had sufficient property to meet her minimum reasonable needs because she had some separate property and had been awarded 65%, which totaled $1.34 million.
A spouse is not required to spend down or liquidate all their assets to meet their short-term needs, however. A court does not have to consider assets that cannot be immediately accessed without consequences in determining if the spouse has sufficient property.
The wife’s separate property included a small savings account, jewelry, and cemetery plots. She had inherited accounts totaling $51,302.04, but she was not required to spend them down. Additionally, the husband testified that withdrawing from retirement accounts would hurt them both. He also testified the real estate market was down and the properties were all mortgaged. The trial court could have found that the funds awarded to the wife from various accounts would be needed to make a down payment on a home. The appeals court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the court to conclude the wife could not immediately access sufficient funds without consequence.
Spousal Maintenance Award
The husband also argued the court erred in awarding more than 20% of his gross income as spousal maintenance. The court had awarded the real estate business to the husband. The net profits reported for that business had been $362,074.00 in 2021 and $252,486.00 in 2022. The wife stopped working for the business in March of 2023 and the net profits were $170,851.00. The appeals court noted the business still made $14,237.58 per month that year. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion because the $2,500 spousal maintenance award was less than 20% of the lowest reported net profit.
The court could have considered the wife’s age, lack of ability to work, and leaving her own career to homeschool the children as compared to the husband’s ability to work and misconduct in the marriage. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the spousal maintenance award.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Seek Legal Advice and Representation
It is not uncommon for a spouse to contribute to a business without being compensated for their efforts. In this case, the wife did not receive a share of the business, but she did receive spousal maintenance. If you are facing a divorce that will involve division of a business, you should consult with a Texas divorce attorney. Set up a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.