Francesca Blackard, Author at Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Court Denies Modification to Prevent Mother’s Relocation with Children

Published on: April 7, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Courts may modify a Texas custody order if doing so is in the best interest of the children and there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances of the child or a conservator since the order was rendered. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101. In determining the children’s best interest, courts consider the factors set forth in Holley v. Adams, but the court is not limited to those factors and all of the Holley factors may not apply in each case.

Courts may also place geographic restrictions on the child’s primary residence to ensure children are able to have frequent and continuing contact with their parents. To determine the children’s best interest when one parent wants to relocate, court consider a number of factors set forth in Lenz v. Lenz. A father recently appealed the denial of his modification petition seeking a more limited geographic restriction.

Modification Proceeding

The father petitioned for modification of the parent-child relationship to reduce the statewide geographic restriction to Midland County. Alternatively, he asked the court to modify the relationship as it deemed in the children’s best interest. He also asked for increased travel expenses because the mother had relocated. In her counterpetition, the mother sought to be named the sole managing conservator with the father being named possessory conservator with supervised visitation. They both alleged a material and substantial change in circumstances since the divorce decree was signed and entered.

Texas Appeals Court Finds Insufficient Evidence of Informal Marriage

Published on: March 28, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Generally, the date of a marriage is certain, but that is often not the case with an informal marriage. The date of marriage affects the characterization of property and therefore a dispute over the date of marriage can significantly impact the property division. A former husband recently appealed a divorce decree, arguing in part that the trial court erred in finding the parties were married on or about January 1, 2012, which was before their ceremonial wedding.

According to the appeals court, the parties had a ceremonial wedding in January 2013. The husband petitioned for divorce in late 2020, alleging they had “married on or about January 31, 2013.” In the wife’s counterpetition, she alleged they “married on or about January 1, 2012.”

The trial focused on the marital residence, some property in Mexico, and the husband’s trucking company.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Annulment Based on Fraudulent Inducement

Published on: March 13, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

A court may grant a Texas annulment if the other party induced the petitioner into the marriage by fraud, duress or force and the petitioner did not voluntarily cohabit with the other party after learning about the fraud or being released from the force or duress. Tex. Fam. Code § 6.107. A former husband recently challenged an annulment, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of fraudulent inducement.

According to the appeals court, when the parties began dating in 2021, the husband was authorized to work in the U.S. and had a pending asylum case. The wife was a U.S. citizen.

They signed a premarital agreement and got married in a civil ceremony in October 2021. They talked about having a traditional ceremony in India with the husband’s family, but the husband would need a green card to be able to return to the U.S. if they went to India.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Discharge of Receiver Years After Final Divorce Decree

Published on: February 28, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

The court in a Texas divorce case may appoint a receiver to protect and preserve the property of the parties. TEX. FAM. CODE § 6.502(a)(5). The receiver only has the powers authorized by the court. The receiver’s role is to receive and preserve the property for all interested parties’ benefit. The receiver must exercise ordinary care in performing their duties. Receivers may be appropriate in high net worth divorces with complex assets or where there are concerns a party may hide or misuse assets. In a recent case, a former husband appealed a trial court order terminating receivership, discharging the receiver, and granting turnover relief to the wife.

Appointment of Receiver

The husband petitioned for divorce in 2009. The court appointed a receiver in 2011 and ordered that he was to take necessary actions to secure payments and manage, control and dispose of the husband’s property. He was also authorized to pay the husband’s living expenses, legal fees and expenses, and court-ordered obligations.

The receiver was subsequently ordered to take possession and control of certain of the husband’s assets, including property in his bankruptcy estate and any exempt retirement accounts. The court instructed the receiver to pay the husband’s living expenses of $5,000 per month, obligations to the wife and minor children, court-ordered obligations to third parties, and up to $1,500 in unexpected expenses of either party, but not more than $6,000 in any four-month period without a court order.

Texas Court Erred in Denying Husband Jury Trial in Texas Divorce

Published on: February 21, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Generally, either party in a Texas divorce is entitled to demand a jury trial pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.703. A party seeking a jury trial must file a timely request. If the jury trial is available to a party as a matter of right, the court generally must grant the request unless doing so would injure the other party, disrupt the docket, or impede the court’s business. Halsell v. Dehoyos. A party in a civil case may waive the right to a jury trial in some circumstances, including agreeing to a bench trial, not timely requesting a jury trial or paying the fee, not appearing for trial, or not objecting to a bench trial. In re Marriage of Harrison. In a recent case, a husband appealed a divorce decree after the trial court held a bench trial following his timely request for a jury trial.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties married in 1986 and the wife petitioned for divorce in June 2020. They accused each other of fraud against the community and cruel treatment. Each sought a disproportionate share of the marital estate and requested reimbursement to the community estate.

The trial court appointed a receiver to take possession and control of the assets, including rental properties and a business.

Court Erred in Valuation of Large Pension in Texas Divorce

Published on: February 7, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Pensions and retirement accounts can complicate property division, especially in a high net worth Texas divorce. Retirement accounts often include both separate and community property. In a recent case, a former husband challenged the court’s valuation of the wife’s pension and the resulting property division.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties had been married nearly 30 years when the wife left and filed for divorce. The trial court found the husband had committed fraud on the community and awarded the wife a disproportionate division of the community estate.

The trial court found the assets of the reconstituted community estate were worth more than $1.8 million. The court also found the community had debts totaling more than $87,000. The court allocated a net estate of over $920,000, or 50.96% of the reconstituted community estate, to the wife and over $888,000, or 49.04%, to the husband.

Credible Risk of International Abduction in Texas Custody Cases

Published on: January 28, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Sometimes when one parent has international ties, the other parent may have concerns about international abduction. There is a two-step statutory process to assess and mitigate risk of parental international abduction. The court must consider certain factors to determine if there is credible evidence of a potential risk. If the court finds there is a credible risk based on the factors, it must determine whether preventive measures should be taken.

In determining if there is a credible risk of international abduction, pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 153.502, the court must consider if there is evidence the parent took, withheld, or concealed a child in violation of someone else’s right of possession of or access to the child or threatened to do so. The court must also consider whether there is a lack of financial reasons for the parent to remain in the country. The court must also consider if the parent has recently engaged in planning activities that could facilitate taking the child from the U.S. Furthermore, the court must consider whether the parent has a history of domestic violence, criminal activity, or violating court orders. The court only has to find credible evidence supporting one of the factors.

In a recent case, a mother appealed a divorce decree that imposed prevention measures without a finding there was a credible risk of international abduction.

Supreme Court of Texas Addresses Several Property Division Issues in Divorce Case

Published on: January 14, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

The Supreme Court of Texas recently considered the property division in a Texas divorce case involving a complex estate, including an outstanding employee bonus, claims of separate property, and a retirement plan.

The parties got married in 2020 and were divorced in late 2019, with litigation regarding the property division continuing beyond the divorce.

Bonus

During the marriage, the husband worked for a large bank. He received an annual cash and stock bonus contingent on the bank’s and his own performance. The bonus was paid around February 15 each year.

Texas Appeals Court Rules on Separate Property Equity in Real Estate

Published on: January 6, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

The property division in a high net worth Texas divorce may require one party to convey their interest in certain assets to the other spouse. In some cases, the parties may agree to liquidated damages in the event one party fails to cooperate and take the actions necessary to transfer their interests. In a recent case, a former spouse challenged a liquidated damages judgment against him.

The parties, S.K.F. and K.J.W., entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which included an agreement incident to divorce (“AID”). The agreed final divorce decree incorporated the AID and ordered the parties to do the things necessary to effectuate their agreement.

The AID confirmed as K.J.W.’s sole and separate property two condominiums in Puerto Vallarta. It awarded S.K.F. $550,000 for the condominiums, as his sole and separate property. The AID set out the payment schedule of: a check for $150,000 the date the MSA was signed, a check for $275,000 on the date the agreed final divorce decree was signed, and $125,000 paid to a law firm to be held in trust to ensure S.K.F. signed the deeds for the condos. It further provided if K.J.W. did not submit a formal written request to sign the deeds within 12 months after the divorce, he was to instruct the firm to pay S.K.F. half of the funds. If he did not make a formal request between the 12^th and 24^th month after the divorce, K.J.W. was to instruct the firm to pay S.K.F. the other half. If, however, S.K.F. signed the deeds as required to transfer his interest in the condos at any point during the 24 months after the divorce, K.J.W. was to instruct the firm to pay the entire balance of the funds to S.K.F. immediately. S.K.F. agreed that, upon receiving the written notice, he would have 90 days to arrange travel to Puerto Vallarta and sign the deeds on the date specified. K.J.W. agreed to pay for his reasonable travel expenses up to $1,300. S.K.F. further agreed that if he failed to sign the deeds within 24 months, K.J.W. would be awarded $600,000 in liquidated damages. The AID also included a general cooperation provision in which both parties agreed “to sign any and all additional documents necessary to effectuate the transfer of any asset, liability or interest in any entity or stock(s) to the other party.”

Texas Appeals Court Finds Wife Failed to Meet Purchase Option Requirements on Marital Residence in Divorce Decree

Published on: December 21, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

In a property division of a complex estate in a Texas divorce, one party may be given the option to purchase the other spouse’s interest in real property or a business. The divorce decree may include terms regarding the purchase option, including deadlines, contingencies, and requirements that the other spouse cooperate by signing documents. In a recent case, a former wife sought a bill of review after she did not complete the purchase of the marital residence from the former husband by the deadline stated in the decree.

The trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce Nunc Pro Tunc in March 2020. Both parties “approved and consented to” the form and substance of the decree. The decree gave the wife the right to purchase the marital residence, which was in the husband’s name. However, if she failed to purchase the property and close by September 1, 2020, she would waive any interest in the property and it would remain the husband’s sole and separate property.

On August 27, 2020, she sent a letter and real estate contract with a September 24 closing date to the husband. He did not respond and the wife failed to buy the property and close by the deadline.