Barbara White v. James N. White, Jr. and Audrey R. Gorham
14-14-00593-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 8, 2015Background
- Barbara and James White divorced after a marriage that began in 1995; trial court signed final decree and QDRO in April 2014 following a bench trial.
- Central dispute: characterization and division of James’s firefighter retirement and DROP account (DROP ≈ $640,000 at divorce); trial court allocated roughly $590,000 as James’s separate property and awarded Barbara an equal share of the community portion and $962.99/month as her one-half community share of James’s monthly retirement annuity.
- Barbara appealed eight issues challenging division of marital property, treatment of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), failure to divide a Sargent house, and denial of her request to restore her maiden name.
- James moved to dismiss most of the appeal under the “acceptance of benefits” doctrine, alleging Barbara had accepted cash and non-cash distributions (DROP funds, monthly payments, mutual fund cash, vehicle, mopeds, motorcycle).
- The court held James bore the burden to prove estoppel; once proven, Barbara had to show applicability of exceptions (economic necessity, entitlement, cash-only). The court found Barbara failed to meet exceptions and thus was estopped from challenging division of the marital estate.
- The court reversed and remanded only the portion denying Barbara’s requested name change because Texas Family Code §6.706(a) requires the court to grant a requested restoration of name or state a reason for denial in the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barbara) | Defendant's Argument (James) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Barbara may challenge trial court’s division of James’s retirement/DROP funds | Trial court mischaracterized and misdivided retirement/DROP and COLAs | Barbara accepted benefits under the decree and is estopped from attacking property division | Overruled (estoppel); Barbara estopped from challenging property division |
| 2. Whether COLAs (post-divorce cost-of-living adjustments) were properly divided | COLAs are community and trial court erred by failing to divide them | Acceptance of benefits bars appeal of COLA division challenge | Overruled as to COLA division issues (estoppel) |
| 3. Whether Barbara’s acceptance was due to economic necessity (exception to estoppel) | She accepted benefits out of financial distress; thus exception applies | Affidavit conclusory; non-cash benefits (Buick) accepted; no proof of necessity | Exception rejected; economic necessity not shown |
| 4. Whether trial court erred in denying restoration of maiden name | Statute mandates grant unless court states reason; decree silent so error | Name-change denial severable from property division; James conceded this part may be reviewed | Reversed and remanded on name-change issue; trial court must grant name change or state reason in decree |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. State Bank v. Amaro, 87 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2002) (acceptance-of-benefits estoppel bars appeal)
- Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (application of acceptance-of-benefits doctrine in divorce context)
- Leedy v. Leedy, 399 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (burden shifting and limits of exceptions to acceptance-of-benefits doctrine)
- Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex. 1951) (exception when reversal cannot affect appellant’s right to benefit)
- Sprague v. Sprague, 363 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (cash-only benefits exception to estoppel)
- In re Macy’s Tex., Inc., 291 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. 2009) (affidavit must show basis for affiant’s knowledge; conclusory affidavits insufficient)