Aimee Delyn Halleman v. Edward Charles Halleman
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7060
Tex. App.2012Background
- Marriage in Oct 2000; two professionals with the same employer; one child, L.L.H., born Jun 2005.
- Disputes about marriage stability and fidelity; conflicting accounts of events during marriage; counseling sought by Aimee in 2007.
- Court granted temporary orders designating Edward as primary conservator; final jury trial in Oct 2010 addressed conservatorship and other issues.
- Jury awarded Edward exclusive right to designate residence and education/medical decisions for L.L.H.; Edward awarded $50,000 in trial attorney’s fees.
- Trial court’s final decree dissolved marriage, divided community estate, and ordered appellate attorney’s fees for Edward pending appeal; Halleman appealed.
- This appeal challenges conservatorship awards, property division, and appellate attorney’s fees; Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Edward’s exclusive residence designation | Aimee contends the verdict rests on discredited credibility and improper weighting | Edward argues the jury could credit his witnesses and resolve conflicts in his favor | Factually sufficient; support is adequate for Edward's exclusive residence designation |
| Sufficiency to support Edward’s exclusive rights on medical/psychological treatment and education | Aimee claims evidence shows both parents competent; trial court abused discretion | Edward asserts best-interest and credibility findings support exclusive rights | Not an abuse of discretion; rights found reasonable and in best interests |
| Equity of the property division | Aimee asserts 76/24 split and large debt burden on her; argues lack of basis for disproportionality | Edward argues factors justify an equitable, not equal, division given circumstances | Division deemed equitable; no abuse of discretion; disproportionality supported by evidence |
| Use of property division to punish informally and pre-divorce adultery as a factor | Aimee claims punitive intent; contends lack of proof of pre-divorce adultery | Edward contends circumstantial evidence supports adultery and contributes to division | Adultery supported by circumstantial evidence; division deemed equitable regardless |
| Appellate attorney’s fees pending appeal | Aimee challenges trial court’s $95,000 appellate fees and prepayment order | Edward argues fees appropriate to preserve assets and child care; modified by earlier memorandum | Trial court’s award affirmed as modified; fees pending appeal upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (factors for sufficiency review in adversary custody disputes)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (standard for legal sufficiency review; credibility of witnesses)
- Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. 1965) (reaffirming jury credibility and weight of evidence)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for appellate review of trial court decisions; deference to jury/trial court)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest factors in conservatorship matters)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (broad discretion in property division; factors for equity)