Articles Posted in Divorce

A fundamental principle of Texas family law is the distinction between community and separate property. While Texas is a community property state, property acquired by a spouse during marriage by gift, devise, or descent is characterized as that spouse’s separate property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.001(2).

This characterization remains vital even when parties have executed a premarital agreement (PMA) designed to opt out of the community property system entirely. A recent decision from the Dallas Court of Appeals, In the Interest of A.B., illustrates that even a robust “no community property” agreement does not preclude one spouse from transferring their separate property to the other through a valid interspousal gift. No. 05-25-00039-CV, 2026 WL, Tex. App.—Dallas.

Factual Background

The dissolution of a marriage involving spouses who serve as co-owners or partners in a closely held business presents unique challenges under Texas law. When marital discord overlaps with corporate governance, the court must navigate the complexities of both the Texas Family Code and the Texas Business Organizations Code. These cases frequently involve high-stakes litigation where the fiduciary duties owed to a business entity intersect with the duties owed to the community estate.

In a recent matter originating in San Antonio, a jury awarded a verdict exceeding $20 million in a dispute involving a prominent automotive dealership partnership. The litigation involved long-term business partners who were also spouses, illustrating the volatility that arises when a professional partnership is entangled with a crumbling marriage.

The dispute centered on allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and the mismanagement of dealership assets during the pendency of the divorce. The divorcing couple has a variety of other lawsuits and countersuits against each other, also awaiting decisions in the Texas court system.

In March 2026, the Texas Supreme Court will implement significant changes to Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, altering the landscape of summary judgment practice in Texas courts. These changes, applicable to motions filed on or after March 1, 2026, introduce mandatory timelines and stricter procedural requirements, creating new strategic considerations for litigants in complex civil matters, including high-asset and contested divorces.

Key Amendments to Rule 166a

The new amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a are designed to clarify summary judgment practice and impose strict procedural timelines. The most significant revisions include:

In Texas family law appeals, procedural compliance is not a technical afterthought; it is often outcome-determinative. A recent Texas Appeals divorce and conservatorship case illustrates a recurring appellate principle: when the record is incomplete, the reviewing court must presume the trial court’s judgment is supported by sufficient evidence, In re Marriage of Ray, No. 12-25-00015-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler 2025). The case serves as a reminder that appellate courts do not retry cases, and they cannot evaluate arguments that are not supported by a complete record.

Factual and Procedural Background

The underlying proceeding involved a divorce and child-related issues concerning B.R. After the trial court entered its final decree, the appellant sought review in the Twelfth Court of Appeals. However, she did not request or file the reporter’s record, which contained the testimony and evidentiary presentations from the trial. That omission defined the scope of appellate review. While the clerk’s record was before the court, it did not include the evidence necessary to evaluate the trial court’s factual determinations.

Texas law draws a firm distinction between separate and community property when dividing assets during a divorce. That distinction often plays a significant role in high-net-worth divorce litigation. The dispute in a recent Texas Supreme Court case, Landry v. Landry, centered on the characterization of two investment accounts held during the marriage.

Factual Background and Procedural History

The husband asserted that the accounts were his separate property because they were funded with premarital assets and proceeds that could be traced to separate sources. The wife challenged that characterization, arguing that all property possessed at the end of the marriage is considered community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.002. She supported her argument by evidencing that the funds going into the accounts during the marriage had been commingled with the original contributions and should be treated as community property.

Texas appellate courts frequently underscore the critical role of financial transparency and credible evidence in divorce proceedings, particularly when child support and property division are contested. In a January 2026 decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld a Rockwall County trial court’s divorce judgment, emphasizing that digital financial records can outweigh a party’s testimony in determining income and the allocation of community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003.

Factual Background of the Case

The underlying dispute involved a husband and wife regarding child support and the division of marital assets. The husband, unemployed since March 2023, claimed a net monthly income insufficient to justify the trial court’s $1,840 monthly child support award. The wife presented Cash App statements showing over $159,000 in deposits over 14 months.

High-profile divorce proceedings often test the boundary between public access and private dispute resolution. Recent reporting indicates that Ken Paxton’s divorce has been drawn directly into a Texas Senate primary contest, with political opponents referencing allegations that he engaged in multiple extramarital affairs during the marriage.

According to media coverage, the alleged relationships reportedly extended over several years and may have overlapped with his tenure as Attorney General. The reporting also highlights allegations of travel and personal expenditures associated with those relationships. Whether proven or not, these claims illustrate how private marital disputes, once filed, can migrate into public and political discourse.

Public Access to Divorce Records in Texas

Texas law presumes that property possessed during marriage is community property, but that presumption becomes more complicated when compensation is paid after the divorce is finalized. The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, assessing how courts should analyze deferred compensation and property characterization in divorce proceedings. The decision in In re J.Y.O. illustrates how Texas courts determine whether a bonus paid after a divorce belongs to one spouse individually or must be included in the marital estate.

The Facts of the Case

The dispute in the case arose during a divorce involving a significant employment bonus and a residence that had been acquired before the marriage. The husband received annual discretionary bonuses as part of his company’s compensation structure.

The trend of couples over age 50 choosing to dissolve long-term marriages, commonly called “gray divorce,” has increased across the United States, and we’re now seeing it here in Texas. Recent demographic data show a growing divorce rate for older Texans, even as overall divorce rates have declined nationwide.

Dividing Property

It’s common for gray divorces to happen after decades of marriage, presenting unique considerations and challenges in the divorce process. These divorces often involve decades of accumulated assets and retirement benefits, and how Texas addresses community property in divorce has a particularly significant impact on long marriages.

Even after a divorce decree becomes final, disputes may arise regarding compliance with the decree’s property provisions. In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court examined whether a trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Chapter 9 of the Texas Family Code when enforcing a divorce decree involving community property. Morrison v. Morrison, No. 24-0053 (Tex. Jan. 30, 2026)

The parties’ divorce decree awarded each spouse defined interests in the marital estate, including the marital residence. After the divorce, a dispute arose concerning one spouse’s alleged failure to maintain property awarded under the decree, which ultimately affected the value of the marital home. The aggrieved spouse sought relief in the trial court, alleging a violation of the decree and requesting enforcement.

Enforcement Versus Modification

Contact Information