Articles Posted in Divorce

Divorce proceedings in Texas can quickly become costly, especially when both parties hire attorneys to navigate the complex process. The total legal expenses can escalate significantly, particularly in cases where financial disparities exist between the spouses. In such scenarios, one spouse might need to enlist forensic investigators as part of their legal team to accurately assess and claim their fair share of the marital estate.

When there is a substantial imbalance in the legal fees incurred by each party, the court may intervene and order the wealthier spouse to cover a portion of the other’s legal expenses. This measure ensures a fairer financial footing for both parties during the divorce. A recent ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals highlights a situation where the court deemed it appropriate to award attorney’s fees as part of the divorce settlement.

In divorce proceedings, the court has the discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees if it deems them necessary and justified. The party requesting the fees must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the fees are reasonable and necessary. This can include detailed records of the hours spent on the case, the nature of the legal work, the complexity of the issues involved, the attorney’s experience, and the prevailing hourly rates in the local legal community. The court then evaluates this evidence to determine if the fees align with what is customary for similar services in the area.

In a typical divorce proceeding, property division and child custody will likely be two main issues among the parties. In Texas, property owned by one spouse before the marriage is usually not subject to division. However, if the other spouse increased the property’s value through specific contributions, that spouse may be entitled to the fair market value of the improvements to the property. Importantly, the spouse’s contributions must have a causal relationship to any appreciation in market value; passive appreciations in value will not suffice. A recent Texas appellate decision demonstrates how courts award property when one spouse claims to have improved another spouse’s separate property acquired before the marriage. The case also addresses joint conservatorship of a couple’s minor children, which many courts also refer to as joint custody.

Facts of the Case

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the Mother and Father were married for eight years and had two minor children. The Mother filed for divorce, and a trial took place before a judge. The evidence focused on real property the Mother had purchased prior to the marriage. The Father had completed renovations to the property during their marriage. The trial also focused on the Mother’s retirement account, which she opened before the marriage but received contributions during the marriage. The trial court appointed both parents as joint managing conservators of their children, awarding the Mother the right to establish the children’s primary residence. The court also denied the Father’s reimbursement claims for funds he expended to improve the Mother’s property. Finally, the court awarded 100% of the disputed property and the retirement account to the Mother. The Father appealed.

The Decision

First, the appeals court affirmed the decision to appoint the Mother as joint managing conservator with the right to establish the children’s residence. The Father attempted to present evidence that the children suffered frequent injuries and illnesses while in the Mother’s care, including a broken arm and various bruises. However, the trial court heard testimony establishing that their son broke his arm at school and not in his Mother’s care. Additionally, because the trial court had photographic evidence of the bruises, it was in the best position to credit the Mother’s testimony that they were minor injuries incidental to the children’s daily activities. Finally, while the Father claimed the Mother failed to seek adequate medical treatment and underfed the children, the children’s pediatrician opined that there was no evidence of neglect and that the Father seemed preoccupied with gathering evidence against the Mother. Therefore, the appeals court rejected the Father’s arguments on this issue.

Continue Reading ›

When dividing property in divorce proceedings, courts will distinguish between separate property and community property. Separate property represents any property or assets that one person has held since before they were married. Conversely, community property constitutes property or assets shared between spouses. Typically, only community property is subject to division among the former spouses. Texas courts presume that property either spouse possesses during marriage or upon the end of the marriage is community property. To overcome this presumption, a spouse must present clear and convincing evidence that they held the property separately. A recent decision from the Texas Supreme Court shows the importance of presenting adequate evidence of separate property to avoid division following a divorce.

Facts of the Case

As the Texas Supreme Court opinion explains, the Wife filed for divorce after 14 years of marriage. At trial, the Husband presented evidence that two investment accounts in his name existed before his marriage. Specifically, an expert witness testified that the Husband did not mix his accounts with community property. The expert further testified about a four-month gap in the investment statements he received. However, he concluded that the missing statements did not detract from the “established pattern of activity” over 15 years. Agreeing with the expert, the trial court found that the accounts were the Husband’s separate property, meaning they were not subject to division.

The Wife appealed, and the appeals court reversed. First, it found “no evidence” of what happened during those four months. Based on this gap in the record, it found that the Husband’s expert could not rely on an “established pattern” of account activity to adequately characterize accounts as separate property. Therefore, it reversed that portion of the trial court’s decision and sent the case back to divide the account balances. The Husband appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Continue Reading ›

Typically, divorce decrees award certain items of property to each spouse. The terms of a decree are final, but a court can enforce them after entering the decree. If one spouse fails to turn over property awarded to the other spouse, the court often must enforce the decree by requiring the spouse to transfer the property. In a recent Texas appeals court opinion, the court handled a petition to enforce a decree involving several items of personal property.

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the Husband appealed a trial court’s partial denial of his petition to enforce the parties’ divorce decree. The decree awarded the Husband patio furniture, dining room furniture, and bronze statues from the marital home. The dispute arose when the Husband sought to recover the furniture, which he claimed was still in the Wife’s possession. At the trial court hearing, the Husband presented evidence of a check he wrote for the patio furniture and photographs of the furniture. The Wife admitted she took some outdoor furniture from their marital home, but she explained that it was not the Husband’s patio furniture but rather items she received before their marriage. In support, the court-appointed receiver testified that the Wife delivered the patio furniture to the Husband and kept her separate outdoor furniture. The Wife then confirmed she never returned the dining room furniture because she had sold it. The Wife also testified that she had not handed over the statues. The trial court granted the Husband’s petition with respect to the bronze statues but denied it with respect to the patio and dining room furniture.

On appeal, the Husband argued that the trial court abused its discretion by partially denying his petition for clarification and enforcement regarding the furniture. The appeals court upheld the district court’s decision with respect to the patio furniture. As the court explained, there was sufficient evidence to conclude the Wife no longer possessed it. The appeals court cited the Wife’s testimony that the other outdoor furniture was her separate property. They also credited the receiver’s testimony that the Wife returned the Husband’s patio furniture. However, the appeals court found that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the dining room furniture. According to the court, there was insufficient evidence that the Wife returned the furniture. In fact, the Wife admitted she possessed the furniture before ultimately selling it. Therefore, the appeals court partially affirmed and partially reversed, sending the case back to the district court to enforce the decree.

Divorce in Texas is a challenging process, often marked by emotional turmoil and complex legal proceedings. When divorce becomes entwined with issues of domestic violence, the situation becomes even more daunting. Texas law is designed to protect the safety of victims of domestic violence while ensuring that alleged perpetrators of such violence are afforded due process while the court addresses the allegations. In this blog post, we delve into the details of one recently decided appellate case and explore the complex interplay between divorce and domestic violence protective orders in Texas.

The case in question revolved around a divorce that was filed in 2020. At the time of filing for divorce, the couple had been married for over three years and had a one-year-old daughter. After the man filed for divorce, the woman filed a counterpetition and sought a protective order for herself and her daughter, alleging that the husband had been violent to the wife and their daughter during the marriage.

The protective order hearing spanned six days, during which multiple witnesses provided testimony. The court also reviewed photos of injuries allegedly suffered by the victim. After the hearing, the court issued a final protective order in favor of the woman, making specific findings that the husband had committed family violence, was likely to commit it in the future, and had caused serious bodily injury. The protective order was set to last for eighteen years.

Divorce in Texas is a challenging and emotionally charged process that often involves complex legal agreements. Most divorces end without a trial, with the parties often agreeing to a stipulation in mediation. Divorce stipulations and settlement agreements may not always be entirely clear, and enforcement of the agreements often relies on alternative interpretations of the same agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case that involved competing interpretations of the same divorce settlement agreement.

In the legal world, divorce agreements are seen as binding contracts between the parties involved. These agreements serve to demarcate the respective obligations and rights of each party, allowing them to strike the deal they choose to strike voluntarily. This principle underscores the significance of clarity and precision when drafting divorce agreements. Parties must ensure that their agreements are explicit, leaving no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.

In the recently decided appellate opinion, the court examined a divorce agreement that centered around the division of a marital residence. The crux of the issue revolved around the date at which the property’s value would be assessed for the purpose of division. One party wished for the appraisal to be made on the date of the entry of the agreement, whereas the other party disagreed since property values had fluctuated dramatically since the agreement was reached. The agreement itself did not specify a particular date for the appraisal.

Continue Reading ›

For many couples, navigating the intricacies of divorce can be a complex and emotionally charged process. This is especially true when international elements are involved, as matrimonial and divorce laws vary worldwide, and may interfere with due process or other U.S. Constitutional rights if they are strictly enforced without scrutiny. The Texas Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of how a Pakistani divorce decree could be recognized and enforced in Texas.

According to the facts discussed in the recently decided appellate opinion, the central question of the case revolved around the recognition of a divorce certificate obtained in Pakistan in the state of Texas. The case highlights the complexity that arises when foreign legal systems intersect with Texas family law. The appellant in the Texas case initiated divorce proceedings in Pakistan and obtained a divorce certificate. However, her former spouse, the appellee, challenged the validity of the divorce. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the divorce certificate, effectively dissolving the marriage between the parties.

The Texas court was tasked to decide how the principle of comity applies to the foreign decree, specifically whether it should grant comity to the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the divorce certificate. Comity suggests that courts should give respect and recognition to the legal decisions of foreign jurisdictions. In opposition to the comity request, the appellant argued that she was not afforded due process during the divorce proceedings in Pakistan, as she was not personally served and received notice only five days prior to the divorce through publication in a local circular. Due process is a fundamental aspect of legal proceedings, both domestically and internationally.