Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Child Support Based on Earning Potential when Parent is Underemployed

Published on: July 3, 2019 | by Francesca Blackard

Parents have a duty to support their minor children and generally cannot avoid that duty through intentional unemployment or underemployment. If a Texas divorce court finds a parent is intentionally unemployed or underemployed, it may consider that party’s earning potential instead of his or her actual income in determining child support.

A mother recently appealed a trial court’s finding that she was intentionally underemployed. The parents reached a mediated settlement agreement on all issues except child support. After a bench trial, the court ordered the father to pay child support for five months. There were some circumstances under which the child support could end earlier, and after the five months passed, there was to be no child support paid by either parent.

The court provided the reasons it varied from the guidelines in its findings of fact. It found the parties had agreed to having the children for equal amounts of time. The father had been found to be disabled. He received disability income, and his health issues prevented him from earning additional income. The mother had two degrees and could work as a licensed school teacher. She had not presented evidence of disability nor a physical handicap that would keep her from earning additional income. The mother had been awarded the marital residence and newer vehicle. The father had to seek new housing to get equal visitation with the children as well as obtain another vehicle. The trial court found the mother was underemployed and could have resources comparable to those of the father.

Arbitrator’s Evident Partiality in Texas Divorce Case

Published on: June 26, 2019 | by Kelly McClure

Many couples facing a Texas divorce seek alternative dispute resolutions, such as arbitration or mediation. Parties to an arbitration are entitled to an impartial arbitrator. The Texas Arbitration Act requires a court to vacate an arbitration award on the application of a party if that party’s rights were prejudiced by “evident partiality” of an arbitrator. The award should be vacated if the arbitrator does not disclose information that might give an objective observer a reasonable impression that the arbitrator is partial. The requirement to disclose applies whether the conflict arises before or during the proceedings. The nondisclosure itself establishes evident partiality, regardless of whether there is actual partiality or bias. Texas courts have acknowledged that extensive experience in the area of law related to the dispute will result in a need for the arbitrator to disclose prior dealings with parties or attorneys. However, the parties should be informed and have the opportunity to evaluate the potential bias ahead of time.

In a recent case, a wife challenged an arbitration award based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his connection to the husband’s attorney. The parties agreed to arbitration pursuant to their pre-marital agreement. In the initial status conference, the arbitrator said he did not have a material relationship with either party or their attorneys beyond normal professional relationships. He did not supplement his disclosures after a new attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the husband as co-counsel.

When the arbitrator failed to issue an award within the time frame set by the court, the husband’s attorney requested a ruling. In her email, she stated, “You know how much I think of you as a friend and a lawyer . . .” The arbitrator issued the award several days after the email, ruling in favor of the husband and against most of the wife’s claims.

Court May Order Battering Intervention and Prevention Program in Texas Custody Case

Published on: June 19, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

In Texas custody cases, the best interests of the child are the primary consideration, and the court uses broad discretion in determining them. If the court finds it is in the child’s best interest to do so, it may limit a parent’s visitation with the child or increase a parent’s time with the child, but only if certain conditions are met. A father recently challenged a court’s order that he would have to complete a Battering Intervention and Prevention Program before the possession schedule could change.

The parents lived together with the child until the mother moved out of the home. The father filed suit, asking to be named joint-managing conservator and to have the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. A jury found the parents should be joint-managing conservators. Although the jury gave the father the exclusive right to designate residence, it placed a geographic restriction on that right.

When the court issued the order, it left the temporary orders for possession in place until the father finished a Battering Intervention and Prevention Program. The mother was granted the exclusive right to consent to invasive medical procedures, make decisions regarding the child’s education, and possess the child’s passport. The father requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, then appealed.

Texas Court Finds Payment of Personal Expenses By LLC Constituted Constructive Fraud in Divorce Case

Published on: May 16, 2019 | by Francesca Blackard

Property owned by a limited liability company belongs to the company and is generally not considered either separate or community property subject to distribution in a Texas divorce case. The limited liability company’s owners, known as “members,” do have an ownership, or “membership” interest in the company. That membership interest can be classified as separate or community property and distributed in a divorce. Additionally, distributions made from the company are community property, even if only one spouse is a member.

A husband recently challenged a finding of constructive fraud and order for reimbursement based on expenditures by and loans to his limited liability company (LLC). He was the LLC’s sole member before and during the marriage. The trial court granted the wife’s constructive-fraud claim and ordered reconstitution of the community estate. The court also characterized the LLC as the husband’s separate property and reimbursed the community estate for loans made to the LLC.

The husband appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings and conclusions regarding the constructive-fraud and reimbursement claims.

Separate Property in Texas Divorce Includes Property Claimed by One Spouse Before Marriage

Published on: April 19, 2019 | by Kelly McClure

In a Texas divorce, there is a presumption that property possessed by either spouse during the marriage or at the time of the divorce is community property, unless there is clear and convincing evidence otherwise. Separate property is property that is owned or claimed by one spouse prior to the marriage.

A wife recently challenged a court’s finding that certain property, the couple’s residence, was the husband’s separate property. The property was conveyed to the couple from the husband’s son and daughter-in-law by warranty deed. The husband and wife both testified the conveyance was a trade of real property and there was no additional consideration given. The husband testified he traded a tract of land he owned before the marriage. The wife argued, however, that the husband did not establish that he owned the tract prior to the marriage.

If property is acquired in exchange for separate property, the acquired property also becomes separate property. Thus, if the husband established that the tract was his separate property, then the residence would also be his separate property.

Texas Divorce Court May Reconstitute Community Estate to Account for Waste and Dissipation

Published on: April 12, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

Property division in a Texas divorce must be equitable. In dividing the property, the court may consider amounts from the community estate that a party has dissipated or wasted. In a recent case, a husband appealed the divorce decree arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the division and that the division was manifestly unjust and unfair.

The couple had been married for about 40 years when the wife filed for divorce. An associate judge issued a final divorce decree in 2015. The wife filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted.

The couple lived in a trailer home on an undivided tract of land. The husband ran his electrician business from the trailer and stored the heavy equipment he used for the business in the barn. This real property was awarded to the husband in the original trial. After the second trial, the property was partitioned into two tracts. The property division awarded Tract A with the trailer to the husband and Tract B with the barn to the wife.

Texas Divorce Court May Correct Clerical Error with Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc

Published on: April 5, 2019 | by Francesca Blackard

Sometimes courts make mistakes. When a Texas divorce court makes a clerical error, the court has the power to correct that error for a period of time, generally within 30 days. If the error is not corrected before the court’s plenary power to correct has expired, it may still be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. The court may only correct a clerical error through a judgment nunc pro tunc and cannot use a judgment nunc pro tunc to correct a judicial error.

A husband recently challenged a judgment nunc pro tunc on the grounds that the alleged error in the original judgment was not a clerical error. The parties had each signed the decree and approved it in form and substance, but the wife’s attorney approved it as to form only. The divorce court and all parties also signed another document, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), that awarded 35 percent of the husband’s military retirement pay to the wife. The divorce decree did not reflect this award.

The husband petitioned the court to amend the QDRO to match the decree, arguing the QDRO was an impermissible modification of the property division. The wife argued its omission was a clerical error in the divorce decree and that the decree was ambiguous. The husband argued the divorce court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the decree.

Texas Custody Modification Requires Material and Substantial Change that Affects the Child

Published on: March 28, 2019 | by Kelly McClure

Modification of a Texas custody order can generally only occur on agreement of the parties or when there is a material and substantial change in circumstances. However, the change in circumstances alone is not sufficient to justify modification, the modification must also be in the child’s best interests.

In a recent case, a father challenged a trial court’s denial of his petition to modify custody. He argued the trial court abused its discretion in finding there was no material or substantive change, allowing the mother to be joint-managing conservator and failing to render a possession order in his favor.

The original order was modified in 2015. In 2016, the father petitioned to modify the order, asking to be named sole-managing conservator with the sole right to designate the child’s primary residence. He alternatively requested the court name him joint-managing conservator with all the exclusive rights of a managing conservator or with the sole right to designate primary residence and expanded possession. He asked the court to either deny the mother access to the child or to have her access supervised.

Money Is Not Tangible Personal Property in Texas Divorce Case

Published on: March 21, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

A Texas divorce case is not always over when the judge signs the final divorce decree. The decree sets forth the property division, but the parties must take action to achieve the division. If party fails to surrender property, the other party may need to file a motion to enforce the property division in the decree. A former husband recently challenged an enforcement order, arguing that the motion had not been filed timely and the claim was time-barred.

The couple divorced in 2012. The wife moved for enforcement of the agreed divorce decree in 2016. She also petitioned for breach of alimony contract. The court held a bench trial and subsequently signed an enforcement order, ordering the husband to make the payments to satisfy the funds transfers required by the decree, to make the unpaid alimony payments, to provide health insurance for the children and reimburse the mother for the premiums she had paid, add the mother to the custodial accounts for the children, and pay the mother’s attorney’s fees. The husband appealed.

The husband argued the portions of the order awarding funds to the wife were barred by the statute of limitations. Section 9.003 of the Texas Family Code requires a suit to enforce division of tangible personal property to be filed within two years from the date the decree was signed or becomes final after appeal.

Texas Appeals Court Overturns Conspiracy Claim Against Grandmother in Custody Case

Published on: March 13, 2019 | by Francesca Blackard

The dispute in a Texas custody case is usually between the child’s parents. In some cases, however, other parties may become involved. In one recent case, the father’s parents got so involved, they intervened in the custody case and the mother filed claims against them.

In 2015, the trial court appointed the mother and father joint managing conservators of their daughter. The father was given the exclusive right to determine her primary residence. The daughter primarily lived with her father’s parents and went to school in Santa Fe. The mother lived in Houston.

The mother moved to modify the order after learning the father had been arrested. She sought the exclusive right to designate the daughter’s primary residence and requested that the father be denied access or have his visits supervised.