David Robertson v. Oksana Robertson
13-14-00523-CV
Tex. App.Dec 3, 2015Background
- David Robertson, a quadriplegic receiving monthly insurance settlement payments (separate property), married Oksana in 2002; disputes with the insurer produced a lump-sum payment and ongoing benefits.
- In July 2012 David signed a written "Partition of Property and Allocation of Income Agreement" (marital agreement) drafted by an attorney Oksana had consulted; it (a) purports to partition community property into separate property (Schedules A & B) and (b) contains Schedule C allocating David’s Arrowpoint Capital (separate) income 50/50 and directing deposits to a joint account.
- In March 2013 Oksana sought divorce and moved for partial summary judgment to enforce the marital agreement; the trial court granted the motion and the divorce decree incorporated its terms.
- David appealed, arguing the agreement was invalid and unenforceable, that the court improperly divested him of separate property (future recoveries), that the trial court granted relief beyond what Oksana requested, and that attorney’s fees were improperly awarded.
- The court examined (1) whether the agreement met Texas Constitution and Family Code requirements for partition/exchange or conversion, and (2) whether David raised fact issues showing involuntariness/duress to defeat summary judgment.
- The court upheld the partition/exchange portion (valid and enforceable) but held Schedule C (income allocation of David’s separate insurance-related income) invalid under Family Code conversion formalities; it also reversed the award giving Oksana 50% of David’s future recoveries and remanded that portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (David) | Defendant's Argument (Oksana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of marital agreement as partition/exchange and allocation of income | Agreement is void for failing to comply with Texas Constitution/Family Code formalities | Agreement is authorized by the Constitution and Family Code | Partition/exchange of community property: valid; Schedule C income allocation (conversion of David’s separate income): invalid |
| Enforceability (voluntariness) of agreement | Signed under duress/threats (threats to report misuse to insurer; threats of harm) | No summary judgment evidence shows involuntary execution; threats not imminent at signing | No fact issue shown as to imminency; agreement enforceable as to partition/exchange portion |
| Division of David’s separate property (future recoveries) | Trial court improperly divested David of separate property by awarding Oksana 50% of future recoveries | Marital agreement and schedules treated future recoveries as community/joint property | Reversed: future recoveries from Arrowpoint and related malpractice claim are David’s separate property; trial court erred in awarding 50% to Oksana |
| Trial court granting relief beyond pleaded agreement and awarding attorney’s fees | Trial court awarded relief/fees beyond what was sought/pleaded | Issues not preserved below; appellee argues forfeiture of appellate review | Issues not preserved for appeal; appellate court does not reach merits (preserved claim rejected) |
Key Cases Cited
- Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc., 397 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2013) (standard of review and de novo review of legal questions)
- Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977) (just and right division of community property on divorce)
- Cameron v. Cameron, 641 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. 1982) (trial court may not divest separate property in property division)
- Cottone v. Cottone, 122 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (recovery for personal injuries characterized as injured spouse's separate property)
- Sheshunoff v. Sheshunoff, 172 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App. — Austin 2005) (voluntariness inquiry for marital agreements; fraud, duress, undue influence relevant)