enforcement

Condition Precedent to Receiving Contractual Support Payments in Texas Divorce Agreement

Published on: April 24, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1125625723-300x200 When parties to a Texas divorce reach an agreement, the agreement may place conditions on certain obligations. A “condition precedent” is something that must occur before a party has a right to performance of an obligation by the other party. In a recent case, a mother challenged a trial court’s finding she had not met the condition precedent to receive certain payments from the father.

In the final divorce decree, the trial court approved and incorporated the parties’ Agreement Incident to Divorce (“AID”). The parties agreed the father would pay $11,500 in monthly Contract Support Payments to the mother to provide her and the two children an “alternative lifestyle.” They would travel and live abroad so the children could learn other languages and cultures. The mother agreed to maintain this lifestyle and spend the Contract Support Payments to support it as a condition precedent to receiving the payments. The AID also included a provision that the father could send a notice if the mother failed to comply with a material term or condition. If she failed to cure the breach within 30 days, the Contract Support Payments would be abated until she complied.

Father Grows Concerned About Children’s Upbringing

The mother and children traveled within the U.S. and several countries abroad until July 2018. The father grew concerned about the children’s lack of structured education and their health and hygiene by the summer of 2018.

Enforcement of High Net Worth Texas Divorce

Published on: February 20, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1139699594-300x200 When a couple has complex and high-value assets, the actions required to achieve the property division may drag out long after their Texas divorce. The parties may need to refinance or liquidate certain assets. These ongoing transactions can result in additional disputes and possibly enforcement actions by one or sometimes both parties.

A husband recently challenged a court’s order in favor of the wife in dualling enforcement motions. The trial court entered an Agreed Final Decree of Divorce in March 2019. The decree awarded the wife a business, but required her to pay the husband a $770,000 equalization judgment secured by her primary residence and rental properties. She was also ordered to make monthly payments with 3% interest starting in February 2019. She defaulted in 2020, triggering an acceleration clause.

The decree also addressed the parties’ 2017 tax return and liability. The wife would pay $60,000 of the approximate $199,000 liability and any penalties and interest “arising solely out of the failure to previously make the $60,000 payment to the Internal Revenue Service.” The parties would split the remaining tax liability, penalties, and interest equally. The wife consented to filing the tax return in June of 2019, but the husband asked to review certain documents before he consented. There was evidence he received the documents in the summer of 2020 and notified the wife and accountant he had identified additional medical expenses within a week of receipt. He ultimately gave his consent to file the day before the enforcement hearing.

Right to Attorney and Right Against Self-Incrimination in Texas Custody Enforcement Action

Published on: January 19, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1139699594-300x200 When a parent in a Texas custody case fails to comply with a court order, the other parent may petition for enforcement of the court order. The parent seeking enforcement may pursue an order of contempt, which can result in six months’ jail time, a fine of $500 per violation, or both. A father recently appealed a contempt order against him, arguing in part that the trial court failed to inform him of his rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Mother Files Enforcement Action Against Father

Several months after the divorce, each party filed an enforcement petition alleging the other violated the decree. The mother asked the court to hold the father in contempt, incarcerate him for up to 180 days, put him on community supervision for 10 years, order him to pay a $500 fine for each violation, and award her attorney’s fees. She alleged he failed to provide documents needed to file tax returns, failed to sign documents to transfer property, and repeatedly interfered with her possession of the child.

A flight delay had resulted in the mother losing two days of possession. The other incidents were related to a disagreement regarding the exchange of possession. Under the decree, the father was required to surrender the child to the mother at the daycare or school, in the parking lot of a specified grocery store if the daycare or school was closed. The decree further permitted each party to “designate any competent adult to pick up and return the child. . .” and required either the party or a designated adult to be present for the drop off.

Texas Appeals Court Enforces Property Distribution Years After Default Divorce

Published on: November 23, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

images Failing to respond to a Texas divorce petition can result in a default judgment with an unfavorable property division. What happens, though, if the spouse who received the default judgment fails to take action to enforce the property division for several years? A Texas appeals court recently considered a case involving that issue.

Wife Obtains Default Judgment

The husband bought a home before he met the wife. They refinanced it jointly twice during the marriage. The wife subsequently filed for divorce and obtained a default divorce decree in February 2011. The decree listed the home as community property and stated that the wife owned it alone as separate property and that the court divested “any interest, title, and claim the Husband may have to [it].” The court further ordered the husband to sign any deeds necessary to transfer the property to her. There was a remaining principal of $43,399.14 according to the bank statement for the next month.

The husband testified he had not been served and only found out about the divorce case and default divorce later that year. The wife moved out about four months after the divorce. She stated the husband did not want her to live there and tried to “kick [her] out in a very aggressive way. . .” She claimed “[t]here was a lot of violence. . .” The husband testified the wife would yell at him that the house was hers and she was going to take it from him. He then went to court to see the divorce decree and learned it awarded the house to the wife. He said he could not afford an attorney at the time.

Wife Waived Right to Tax Reimbursement by Failing to Comply with Texas Divorce

Published on: July 25, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

does-adultery-affect-alimony-in-idaho-1080x600-1 When the parties to a Texas divorce agree on a property division, they may agree that certain obligations or conditions must be met. If a party fails to meet their obligations as agreed to and set forth in the divorce decree, they may not be entitled to the property they were expecting. In a recent case, a husband challenged a court order requiring him to reimburse the wife for certain tax liabilities after she failed to provide him the documentation required to calculate the amount he owed in accordance with the decree.

Wife Fails to Comply with Requirements of Divorce Decree

The parties’ mediated settlement agreement was incorporated into their divorce decree. The decree required the wife to withdraw funds from the husband’s pension plan. After paying certain debts, her attorney was to distribute 30% of the remainder to the wife and 70% to the husband. The decree required the husband to reimburse the wife 70% of her income tax liability for those funds. The decree ordered the wife have two draft income tax returns prepared, one showing the pension plan funds as income and the other not including the funds, to allow the husband to calculate that reimbursement. She was to provide the husband with the draft returns by June 1 of the year after the year the funds were liquidated.

The wife hired a tax preparation company. The first draft return was a joint return with her new husband and included his wages, her wages, her social security disability income, and the liquidated pension plan funds. The second draft return indicated it was a joint return, but only included her wages. She sent the drafts to the husband before the deadline. He informed her he needed a draft return that included only her wages and the liquidated pension plan funds. The wife went back to the tax preparer multiple times, but said they kept getting it wrong.

Texas Contractual Alimony Claim Barred by Contract Statute of Limitations

Published on: July 11, 2021 | by McClure Law Group

iStock-1183385986-scaled Texas divorce cases can involve multiple areas of law. Contract law applies to pre-marital and post-marital agreements. Contract law may also apply to agreements the parties enter into as part of a divorce. In a recent case, a portion of a wife’s claims for contractual alimony was barred by the contract statute of limitations.

When the parties divorced in 2012, they entered into a written agreement. Their divorce decree included a provision for “Contractual Alimony,” with the parties agreeing that the husband would pay the wife $4,000 per month, payable on the first of the month with a five-day grace period before the payment would be considered late. The contractual alimony was to be paid from June 2013 to May 2015. The decree further stated that the wife could accelerate the payments if the husband defaulted and failed to cure within 30 days of receiving notice of intent to accelerate.

Wife Moves to Enforce Contractual Alimony

The wife moved to enforce the alimony requirements on March 26, 2019. She alleged the husband had failed to make the payments starting in December 2013. She asked the court to order him to pay the past due payments, interest, and fees and costs.

Wife Entitled to Share of Husband’s Military Retirement in Texas Divorce

Published on: May 7, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

retire Retirement benefits can be a complex and contentious issue in a Texas divorce case. Generally, any income earned during marriage is considered community property unless proven to be separate property, including funds contributed to a retirement account or earned as pension benefits. In a recent case, a husband challenged a court’s order awarding a portion of his military retirement benefits to his ex-wife.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the wife petitioned for enforcement of property division by contempt, alleging the husband had not paid her the retirement benefits awarded to her in their divorce decree. The husband argued the military benefits had either been awarded to him or had not been divided at the time of the divorce.

The wife filed an amended motion to clarify, asking the court to enter a clarifying order if it found any part of the previous order was not specific enough for enforcement through contempt. She specifically asked the court to clarify the order to reflect the length of the marriage and the husband’s dates of military service. She also asked the court to sign a Military Qualified Domestic Relations Order.

Texas Divorce Decree Must Adopt Terms of a Mediated Settlement Agreement

Published on: February 23, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

A Texas Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) that meets the statutory formalities is binding and the parties are entitled to a judgment upon it (i.e., the divorce decree must adopt it). In a recent case, a husband challenged an order issued after the divorce decree that was intended to conform the decree with the terms of the MSA.

The

parties executed an MSA. A couple of weeks after the court entered the final divorce decree, the wife moved for clarification of the MSA. She alleged the final decree did not reflect the MSA, because it failed to confirm certain items as her separate property. The trial court entered an order confirming those items as her separate property after a hearing.

The husband appealed.