Divorce

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.

Texas Appeals Court Concludes Company Was Husband’s Separate Property

Published on: January 20, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

Division of a business in a Texas divorce can complicate a Texas divorce. As with other property, a business interest possessed during the marriage is presumed to be community property, but that presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that it is separate property. In a recent case, a husband appealed a property division involving a business interest and property owned by the business.

The trial court signed a final divorce decree in July 2023 and subsequently filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The property at issue was a 125-acre tract of land that the husband’s father previously owned. The trial court found the husband and his father each received 50 shares of company stock on the day the company was created in May 2008. A few days later, the husband’s father deeded the property to the company. The parties got married in June 2009.

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 Affirms Spousal Maintenance Award to Disabled Spouse

Published on: January 6, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

A court may award Texas spousal maintenance in a divorce case if the spouse seeking maintenance meets the statutory requirements. Generally, a spouse seeking maintenance must show that they lack sufficient property to provide for their own minimum reasonable needs and meet one of the other statutory conditions, including being unable to earn sufficient income due to an incapacitating disability. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051.

“Minimum reasonable needs” is not defined in the Texas Family Code. The court therefore has the discretion to determine a party’s minimum reasonable needs based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts consider expenses including housing, clothing, and transportation. A former husband recently challenged the divorce decree that ordered him to pay spousal maintenance, arguing the wife had not proven her minimum reasonable needs.

The parties got married in Australia in 2009 and subsequently moved to Texas. Although the husband had a high-paying job, the wife only earned up to $10.50 per hour. She had significant mental and physical health issues that resulted in her unemployment in 2017.

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 Court Denies Petition to Enforce Provisions of 1993 Divorce Decree in High Net Worth Divorce

Published on: January 6, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

The conflict in a Texas divorce does not always end when the divorce is finalized, especially a high net worth divorce or one that involves complex assets. A Texas appeals court recently considered an appeal of a denial of a petition to enforce certain property division provisions from a divorce decree from 1993. The ex-husband was deceased when the petition for enforcement was filed, so his widow, as heir to the property, was the real party in interest in the proceedings.

Divorce Decree

The divorce decree incorporated and adopted a “Property Statement and Settlement,” an agreement between the ex-husband and ex-wife addressing the division of assets and liabilities. The decree awarded the ex-husband a particular property in Williamson Count as his sole and separate property. It provided that the ex-wife was divested of any right and title in the homestead. The ex-husband would be solely responsible for all liabilities and benefits associated with the dwelling. The decree further provided that if the husband failed to make the monthly mortgage payments, the house and/or property would be sold. “In the event of sale of said dwelling and/or acreage,” the wife would be entitled to ½ of the net profit. The ex-wife was not to be held liable for any mortgage payments, taxes, or other expenses related to the property.

The decree awarded the ex-wife 100% of the proceeds from the sale of a different property, as well as all benefits associated with it. The decree also awarded her a vehicle, jewelry, a savings account, and a checking account. All debt was awarded to the ex-husband.

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.

Characterization of Gifted Property in a Texas Divorce

Published on: November 30, 2024 | by Kelly McClure

When individuals with a high net worth marry, they often bring significant separate assets to the marriage. When marriages with complex estates end, there may be disputes over whether property is community property or the separate property of one of the spouses. The trial court in a divorce must divide the community estate of the parties in a just and right manner. The trial court generally may not divest a spouse of their separate property by awarding it in whole or in part to the other spouse. Community property is the property, other than separate property, acquired by either spouse during the marriage. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.002. Separate property includes property the spouse owned before the marriage and property gifted, devised, or descended to the spouse during the marriage. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.001. Texas law has a rebuttable presumption that property possessed by either spouse at the time of the divorce is community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003. The spouse claiming property is separate has the burden of proving the property’s character by clear and convincing evidence. In a recent case, a husband appealed a property division he claimed improperly divested him of his separate property.

The Property

The parties got married in 2008. The wife petitioned for divorce in 2021 and subsequently amended her complaint to allege adultery. The primary issue at trial was the characterization of a particular piece of real property.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband’s parents gave him a tract of land in 1995. The wife testified it was her understanding the husband’s parents had given the property to him as a gift in 1995. The husband testified that he had a house moved onto the land the same year.

Texas Court Appoints Receiver in Divorce with Complex Estate and International Assets

Published on: November 27, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

During a Texas divorce case, the court may appoint a receiver to preserve and protect the parties’ property. Tex. Fam. Code § 6.502(a)(5). The receiver’s role is to receive and preserve property for all of the parties, not just the party who applied for a receiver. Protecting assets can be particularly important in a complex estate involving business interests, real property and other assets under the control of one spouse. A husband recently appealed appointment of a receiver in his divorce case.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties had been married for about 12 years when the wife petitioned for divorce. The wife requested appointment of a receiver, alleging the husband had transferred community assets. The husband argued that some of the assets were his separate property and that a receiver should not be appointment when there was another available remedy. He argued the wife had filed a lis pendens on the real property.

The Hearing

At the hearing, the wife’s attorney argued the husband was a successful doctor who had transferred assets worth millions to Lebanon and Syria. She argued he had cancelled the credit card and closed the joint bank account. She stated they did not know where the money went because the husband did not answer discovery. The attorney argued the hearing was urgent because it would be hard to enforce the orders once the funds were in Syria or Lebanon, noting there had been previous injunctions against transfers of money and sales of property.