Property

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.

Husband’s Inherited Home Confirmed as Separate Property Not Subject to Division in Divorce

Published on: October 27, 2024 | by Kelly McClure

The court in a Texas divorce case must divide the parties’ estate in a just and right manner. Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001. Complex estates may include both community and separate property, acquired from various sources. The court can only divide community property, which is any property acquired by a spouse during the marriage except separate property. Separate property includes property owned by the spouse before the marriage and property acquired by a spouse during the marriage through gift, devise, or descent. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.001(2). There is a presumption property either spouse possesses during or on dissolution of the marriage is community property and a spouse claiming property is separate has the burden of proof to a clear and convincing standard. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003.

In a recent case, a former wife appealed the court’s property division in the final divorce decree. The parties got married in 1999 and had one child. The husband petitioned for divorce in 2017. He asked the court to confirm two pieces of real property were his separate property. The wife sought reimbursement to and reconstitution of the community estate and spousal maintenance. The court filed the final divorce decree in January 2024 and the wife appealed.

Separate Property

On appeal, the wife challenged the trial court’s characterization of the “69^th Street property” as the husband’s separate property. She argued the husband had not presented sufficient evidence to support his testimony that he had inherited it.

Reconstitution of Community Estate Due to Waste or Fraud in Texas Divorce

Published on: September 30, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

A court dividing property in a Texas divorce may consider a number of factors, including fraud or waste of community assets by a party. A spouse may commit constructive fraud or waste by unfairly depriving the other spouse of the benefit of community assets. There is a presumption of constructive fraud when a spouse disposes of the other’s interest in community property without their knowledge or consent. A former husband recently challenged a property division after the court found he had committed fraud and waste on the community estate.

The parties married in February 2011 and the wife petitioned for divorce in July 2018. Both parties alleged constructive fraud and wasting of community assets by the other and sought reconstitution and a disproportionate share of the community estate.

The court granted divorce and ultimately confirmed $46,000 in an IRA as the husband’s separate property. The court found the husband committed fraud on the community estate and reconstituted the community estate. Included in the reconstitution was $71,483.33 for depletion of an IRA, $81,321.98 for dissolution of the husband’s interest in a limited liability company, and $17,000 for unpaid medical expenses for the children. The court also awarded the wife a disproportionate share of the community estate.

Property Division Pursuant to Texas Premarital Agreement Turns on Interpretation of “Their”

Published on: August 28, 2024 | by Kelly McClure

Property’s characterization as either separate or community property in a Texas divorce is generally determined by its character at inception. The Texas Family Code includes a presumption that property either spouse possesses during or on dissolution is community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003(a). The Code defines “community property” as the property acquired during the marriage by either spouse, except separate property. § 3.002. Personal income and income produced by separate property is generally community property. Spouses may, however, enter contracts changing their rights and obligations with regard to property. Although premarital agreements are contracts and generally interpretated according to the rules of contract interpretation, they are narrowly construed in favor of the community estate. A former husband recently appealed the property division in his divorce, argued the court had failed to apply the terms of the premarital agreement.

Premarital Agreement

The parties had signed a premarital agreement two days before their wedding. The husband drafted the agreement based on a form from the internet. The agreement was partially typed and partially handwritten. The agreement included a Separate Property Provision that provided that the separate property each party brought to the marriage would stay their separate property. It also included an Acquired Property Provision that provided, “All property acquired by each during the marriage shall be deemed [th]eir property.” The agreement also stated that the husband’s 401(k), along with “income profits, Deferred Retirement Option (D.R.O.P.) or any benefits of any kind accruing from it” would remain his separate property. The agreement further provided that the wife’s “personal income or retirement will remain her separate property.”

The dispute was over the meaning of the Acquired Property Provision, specifically related to the marital home and a vehicle. The husband bought the house four years into the marriage with funds received from the sale of a house in Hurst, Texas, he had purchased with his separate property in 2006. The parties had lived in the home in Hurst from 2006 until 2014. The wife said she paid for improvements to both.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Equal Property Division Despite Fraud Allegations

Published on: August 20, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

A trial court in a Texas divorce must divide the community estate in a just and right manner. The court has broad discretion in determining what is just and right, and, when there is a reasonable basis for doing so, the court may order a disproportionate division. The court may consider a party’s claims for waste or fraudulent transfer of community property in its property division. Waste, or constructive fraud, occurs when one spouse wrongfully depletes the community estate without the knowledge or consent of the other spouse. Actual fraud occurs when a spouse transfers community property or uses community funds for the primary purpose of depriving the other spouse of their use and enjoyment. A reimbursement claim arises when the assets of one estate are used for the benefit of another estate without benefit to the first, such as community funds being used to pay for repairs to one spouse’s separate property. A former wife recently appealed the property division in her divorce, arguing the court abused its discretion by not awarding her a disproportionate share due to her fraud and reimbursement claims.

Divorce Proceedings

According to the appeals court, the parties each owned property when they married and acquired property together during the marriage. The husband granted a gift deed to a half interest in his separate property, identified by the court as “Bayou Shore.” The wife’s separate property was sold to her brother to resolve a community debt during the marriage.

Both parties alleged fraud and made claims for reimbursement and waste.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Order Requiring Ex-Husband to Sign Papers to Transfer Stock to Ex-Wife

Published on: August 14, 2024 | by Kelly McClure

After rendering a Texas divorce decree, the trial court retains continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce its property division. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.002. The court may issue additional orders to enforce the property division. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.006. An order to enforce may help in implementing or clarify the previous order, but it may not make substantive changes to the property division. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007. The court generally has broad discretion to enforce the property division.

In a recent case, a former husband appealed a court order requiring him to sign documents to effectuate the transfer of stocks that were awarded to the wife in the divorce.

The divorce decree awarded the wife all shares of a particular stock owned by the husband or in his name. It also ordered the husband to appear at a particular law office on or before September 15, 2022 to sign the documents to transfer the shares.

Texas Appeals Court Husband Did Not Overcome Community Presumption in Divorce

Published on: July 14, 2024 | by Kelly McClure

Community property is the property acquired by other spouse during the marriage, except separate property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.002. Separate property is generally that property the spouse owned or claimed prior to the marriage, property acquired by gift, devise, or descent during the marriage, and personal injury recoveries with the exception of recovery for lost earning capacity during the marriage. There is a presumption that property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution is community property. This presumption can only be rebutted in a Texas divorce by clear and convincing evidence. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003. Separate property remains separate as long as the community presumption is overcome by tracing the assets back to separate property. Mischaracterizing property and awarding a spouse’s separate property to the other spouse constitutes an abuse of discretion and reversible error by a trial court in a divorce. A husband recently appealed the property division in his divorce, arguing the trial court had mischaracterized some of his separate property as community property.

Property Division

The parties had been married about nine years when the wife filed for divorce. In his counterpetition, the husband asked the court to confirm certain property was his separate property. The trial was focused on the property division, included two houses and an individualized retirement account (“IRA”). The trial court awarded one house to each party and ordered that the spouse awarded each house was responsible for the balance of that house’s mortgage. The court also ordered the IRA funds be split equally. The trial court confirmed certain home furnishings were the wife’s separate property and a sword stand and orange sofa were the husband’s separate property.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Unequal Property Division and Spousal Maintenance

Published on: June 21, 2024 | by Francesca Blackard

Courts are required to divide marital estates in a just and right manner in a Texas divorce. A court may divide the estate unequally, but must have a reasonable basis to do so. Courts may consider a number of factors in making that determination, including the parties’ relative physical conditions, their relative financial conditions, disparity in their ages, the value of their separate estates, disparity in income or earning capacity, and the nature of the property. A husband recently appealed a disproportionate division.

Divorce Proceedings

The parties were married for 27 years and their children were all adults at the time of the divorce. The husband had been working for the Border Patrol since September 2022 and participated in the Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”). He testified he was not eligible to collect the benefits yet. He also testified he contributed to a Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a 401(k) for civil servants, with a balance of $135,734.73. His net earnings, not including overtime, were $4,500.34 per month. Tax records showed he earned $114,626.75 from his job as a border patrol agent in 2017 and $120,674.96 in 2018. He also testified he prepared taxes as a side job and earned an extra $24,800 in 2019.

The wife testified she was earning a monthly net income of $1,807.64, totaling $21,691.68 per year. She testified she had $2,229.97 in monthly expenses. The husband disagreed with her net monthly earnings, but agreed it was insufficient to cover her monthly expenses. The wife also testified her retirement account was worth $6,168.78.

Texas Post-Judgment Qualified Domestic Relations Order

Published on: May 7, 2024 | by Kelly McClure

When retirement accounts are an issue in a Texas divorce, the court will generally issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”). A QDRO is an order that creates, recognizes, or assigns rights of an alternate payee to receive benefits from another person’s retirement plan. Although a QDRO is often issued during the divorce, in some cases, a court may enter a post-judgment QDRO. A former wife recently challenged a post-judgment QDRO, arguing it was void.

The parties had been married around nine years when the wife petitioned for divorce. The trial court awarded the wife all sums, increases, proceeds, and other rights related to her employee retirement accounts, except $10,000 from her Teacher Retirement System (“TRS”) account went to the husband. The divorce decree was signed on March 27, 2019 and the divorce was effective October 31, 2018.

Husband Seeks QDRO

The husband filed a proposed order on June 3 in the divorce case seeking a QDRO but did not serve the wife. The court entered an order a few days later designating the husband alternate payee of the wife’s TRS plan and stating he was not to “receive more than a total of $10,000 plus interest. . ..”