Ashlie Koenig// Brian Blaylock v. Brian Blaylock// Cross-Appellee, Ashlie Koenig, 497 S.W.3d 595

Before marriage Koenig and Blaylock acquired a house by general warranty deed; Blaylock paid $100,000 down and lived there; Koenig moved in after marriage and later contributed some equity.
The parties divorced and, by a mediated settlement incorporated into the final decree, the Residence was awarded to Blaylock in exchange for his payment of $61,500 to Koenig (plus $22,500 from sale proceeds of a vehicle) and execution of certain transfer/financing documents.
Koenig moved in family court to enforce the decree after Blaylock failed to refinance and pay; the family court refused to order sale but rendered a money judgment in Koenig’s favor for $61,500 plus interest and attorney’s fees.
Koenig then filed a district-court partition suit seeking sale of the Residence as an alleged cotenant; Blaylock moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a and sought attorney’s fees.
The trial court denied the Rule 91a motion solely because it did not rule within 45 days, awarded Koenig fees for responding to the motion, and later denied Koenig’s partition claim after an evidentiary hearing.
The court of appeals reviewed Blaylock’s cross-appeal, held the 45-day requirement is directory (not jurisdictional), determined Koenig’s partition claim had no legal basis because she had already been made whole by the enforcement judgment, granted Blaylock’s Rule 91a motion, rendered dismissal, and remanded to determine attorney’s fees owed to Blaylock.

Issue	Koenig’s Argument	Blaylock’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied Rule 91a motion because it ruled after 45 days	Rule 91a requires denial/grant within 45 days; court’s late ruling justifies denial	The 45-day requirement is directory; court may decide on the merits after 45 days	45-day rule is directory; trial court erred denying motion on that procedural basis
Whether Koenig’s partition claim has legal basis after enforcement judgment reduced decree to money judgment	Koenig claims cotenancy via deed and seeks partition of Residence	Blaylock argues decree + enforcement judgment awarded residence to him in exchange for money judgment to Koenig, so she lacks present possessory interest required for partition	Partition claim has no basis in law; dismissal under Rule 91a proper because enforcement judgment made Koenig whole
Whether Koenig was prevailing party on Rule 91a and entitled to fees for responding	Koenig prevailed because court denied motion (procedurally) and awarded her fees	Blaylock asserts he was prevailing party on the merits and entitled to fees if motion granted	Court’s procedural denial was error; on merits Blaylock is prevailing party and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs for the motion
Remedy and disposition on appeal	N/A	N/A	Court reversed trial judgment, rendered judgment granting Rule 91a dismissal, and remanded to determine amount of fees and costs owed to Blaylock

Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (standard of review for Rule 91a motions and de novo review)
City of Austin v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 431 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (procedural standards for Rule 91a review)
Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (pleading and Rule 91a fair-notice standard)
Chisolm v. Bewley Mills, 287 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. 1956) (distinction between mandatory and directory statutory time limits)
Green v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 760 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988) (analysis for determining whether time limit is mandatory or directory)
DeGroot v. DeGroot, 369 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (family-code authority that decree awards may be reduced to judgment)
Savell v. Savell, 837 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (partition requires joint ownership and present possessory interest)
McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (unchallenged findings of fact occupy same position as jury verdict)