Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
Generally, either party in a Texas divorce is entitled to demand a jury trial pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.703. A party seeking a jury trial must file a timely request. If the jury trial is available to a party as a matter of right, the court generally must grant the request unless doing so would injure the other party, disrupt the docket, or impede the court’s business. Halsell v. Dehoyos. A party in a civil case may waive the right to a jury trial in some circumstances, including agreeing to a bench trial, not timely requesting a jury trial or paying the fee, not appearing for trial, or not objecting to a bench trial. In re Marriage of Harrison. In a recent case, a husband appealed a divorce decree after the trial court held a bench trial following his timely request for a jury trial.
According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties married in 1986 and the wife petitioned for divorce in June 2020. They accused each other of fraud against the community and cruel treatment. Each sought a disproportionate share of the marital estate and requested reimbursement to the community estate.
The trial court appointed a receiver to take possession and control of the assets, including rental properties and a business.
The husband requested a jury trial and paid the fee. A jury trial was scheduled, but on the trial date, the wife alleged the husband had failed to file proposed jury charge questions and timely respond to discovery. The court held a hearing on the wife’s motion in limine.
The wife stipulated to having committed adultery and the court prohibited the husband from introducing any reference to her adultery. The court also prohibited him from introducing evidence of her alleged cruel treatment that he had not identified in discovery. It further prohibited the husband from introducing evidence relating to his reimbursement claim based on his failure to provide discovery responses supporting the claim.
The court determined there were no issues of fact, discharged the venire panel, and held a bench trial. The final divorce decree stated the parties waived a jury trial.
The court found both parties had committed adultery and that the husband was guilty of cruel treatment rendering living together insupportable.
The husband appealed, arguing error in the court’s denial of his request for a jury trial.
No Waiver
It was undisputed that the husband had made a timely request and timely paid the fee. The wife argued he waived his right to a jury trial when he failed to object when the court started the bench trial.
The appeals court noted the trial court had “unequivocally denied” the jury trial request at the end of the hearing. The husband did not waive the request by not objecting the next day when the court started the bench trial. The appeals court also concluded there was no evidence at the hearing that a jury trial would have harmed the wife, disrupted the docket, or impeded the court’s ordinary business. The appeals court concluded the husband had not waived the right to a jury trial.
Jury Issues
The wife argued that, even if the husband had not waived the right to a jury trial, the denial was harmless because the husband could not identify a jury issue. She argued the husband had not properly pleaded or identified in discovery much of what he wanted the jury to resolve.
The husband argued there were a number of fact issues. He had filed a proposed jury charge on the day of the hearing, asking the jury to determine if either party was at fault in the breakup, whether the wife withdrew funds from community accounts while the case was pending, if certain property was his separate property and if the wife was entitled to reimbursement, if certain property was the wife’s separate property and if he was entitled to reimbursement, and the value of certain community property.
The appeals court noted the jury’s answers regarding property disposition are only advisory and a party is not entitled to a jury trial for a strictly advisory verdict. However, the jury’s answers regarding fact issues based upon which the property’s status is determined are not just advisory. The appeals court noted the denial of jury trial would result in harm if there were disputed fact questions involving property status.
The wife argued the husband was precluded from introducing evidence or legal theories related to any questions of fact because he had not disclosed them in discovery.
The appeals court concluded that, although the husband was precluded from introducing evidence of the wife’s cruel treatment, he had a right to present evidence in defense of the wife’s claims of cruel treatment by him. His general denial in his answer raised a fact question for the jury.
Additionally, there was a section titled “Disputed Characterization” in the receiver’s report that identified properties the husband claimed were his separate property and that the wife claimed were community property. The trial court determined that six of those seven properties were the husband’s separate property. It concluded the other property was community property and awarded it to the wife. If the jury had found that seventh property was the husband’s separate property, the court could not have awarded it to the wife. This husband had made this allegation in his sworn inventory, which raised a question of fact for the jury.
The valuation of certain property was in dispute. The parties’ sworn inventories differed in the values assigned to the nine pieces of real estate identified in the community estate in the receiver’s report. The wife assigned a total value for those properties at $2,637,000, and the husband assigned them a total value of $1,443,843. The receiver had also determined a value for each of the properties, totaling $2,595,000, which he said was based on appraisals. The parties had agreed upon an appraiser, but the appeals court noted nothing in the record indicated they or the court were bound by the valuations of the receiver or appraiser. The husband had contested the receiver’s valuations by filing a sworn inventory and this raised issues of fact.
The community estate included an interest in an HVAC supply business. According to the receiver’s report, the husband’s sworn inventory stated a value of $75,000 on the business’s inventory, while the wife stated the value as $155,139.18. The wife also placed a value of $200,000 on the “business interests” of the business, but the husband did not include that. The receiver adopted the wife’s inventory valuation, but not the “business interests.” The court awarded the business to the husband. The appeals court noted if a jury had agreed with the husband’s valuation, it would have affected the property division. The husband generated a question of fact with his sworn inventory regarding the valuation of the business.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment in granting the divorce, but reversed the remainder of the judgment and remanded to the court for a jury trial.
Contact a Skilled Texas Family Law Attorney
This case involved the division of a business and multiple rental properties. If you are facing a high net worth divorce involving the division of a business, you need a knowledgeable Texas business divorce attorney to help you protect your rights. Call 214.692.8200 for a consultation with McClure Law Group.