When parties to a Texas divorce can reach an agreement on property division or other issues, they may be able to resolve their case more efficiently and with less hostility than can occur with prolonged litigation. In some cases, however, a party may learn information after initially agreeing to a division that that changes their position. When parties consent to an agreed judgment, their consent must exist when the court renders the judgment. They are able to revoke consent until the judgment is rendered. An agreed judgment cannot be rendered if a party has withdrawn consent. In a recent case, a husband appealed an “agreed” judgment, arguing he had withdrawn his consent before the court rendered the judgment.
According to the opinion of the appeals court, the parties got married in 2005. The wife filed for divorce in early August 2022. She expressed a belief the parties would reach an agreement on the property division, but asked for a just and right division if they did not do so. A couple of months later, she filed an affidavit stating she and the husband had entered an agreement for division of the debts and property. She further stated she had submitted an agreed decree that had been signed by both parties and contained the agreement. She asked the court to approve the agreement.
The husband filed a counterpetition, alleging the wife had breached her fiduciary duty and committed constructive fraud, waste, and conversion. He alleged she conveyed more than her own share of the community estate to enrich herself and defraud him. He alleged damages of about $100,000. He asked the court to set aside the transfer and award him damages.
Texas Divorce Attorney Blog


Non-parents have limited rights in seeking Texas custody or visitation. In some circumstances, however, stepparents actively parent their stepchildren. In a recent case, a stepfather challenged a court order awarding custody of his stepchild to the child’s maternal grandparents after the death of the mother.
Pursuant to the Inception of Title doctrine, a property’s character is determined when the party acquires their interest in it. This means that property acquired before the marriage will generally be characterized as that spouse’s separate property in a Texas divorce. In a recent case, however, the court determined that a house purchased solely in the name of the husband before the marriage was the separate property of both spouses.
Texas spousal maintenance is intended to provide “temporary and rehabilitative” support for a spouse who does not have the ability or assets to support themselves or whose ability to do so has deteriorated while they were engaged in homemaking activities. Courts may award spousal maintenance only in limited circumstances if the parties meet the requirements under the Texas Family Code.
There is a presumption under Texas family law that it is in the child’s best interest to be raised by their parents. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children. Courts generally cannot interfere with these fundamental rights of a fit parent. The fit parent presumption makes it difficult for a nonparent to obtain custody over a fit parent.
A trial court in a Texas custody case that appoints both parents joint managing conservators must determine which parent will have the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence. The court must also either establish a geographic restriction or specify that there is not a geographic restriction on the child’s residence. The court’s primary consideration is the child’s best interest. The Texas supreme court has identified a number of factors to be considered in determining if relocation is in a child’s best interest: reasons in favor of and against relocation; the effect on the child’s relationships with extended family; the effect on the other parent’s visitation and communication with the child; whether a visitation schedule could allow the child and other parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship; and the nature of the child’s age, ties to the community, and educational and health needs. Lenz v. Lenz.