Edward Schafman v. Sue Schafman, 01-20-00231-CV

Edward and Sue Schafman married in 1988 (≈30 years). Ed is a CPA and business owner; Sue was a long‑time homemaker with limited recent work history.
Sue has a documented history of substance abuse and serious mental‑health episodes during the divorce (involuntary commitments; inpatient treatment at Menninger; diagnoses including delusional/psychotic disorders).
The trial court admitted Sue’s medical records, found her credible, found portions of Ed’s testimony not credible, and found Sue not capable of full‑time employment.
The decree divided substantial assets: Ed received business interests, the marital residence (with an owelty/30% equalization payable to Sue on sale), and other assets; Sue received retirement accounts in Ed’s name (~$680,000), a New Braunfels condo, cash from attorneys’ trust accounts (~$215,000 after fees), two bank accounts, some vehicles, and an unresolved Thailand bank account.
The court awarded Sue spousal maintenance of $3,333.33/month (20% of Ed’s gross monthly income) from Nov. 2019–Oct. 2027 (eight years) and found Ed guilty of cruel treatment.
Ed appealed, arguing (1) Sue was not eligible for maintenance, (2) the amount/duration were improper, and (3) the cruelty finding lacked support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ed)	Defendant's Argument (Sue)	Held
1) Eligibility for spousal maintenance	Sue has sufficient property/liquidity to meet minimum reasonable needs; no incapacitating mental disability; failed to exercise diligence to earn income	Medical records, inpatient commitments, treating‑team testimony, and Sue’s credible testimony show an incapacitating mental disability and lack of ability to earn sufficient income; assets are not sufficiently liquid	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Sue is eligible under Fam. Code §8.051(2)(A) (mental disability)
2) Amount and duration of maintenance ($3,333.33/mo for 8 years)	Award is excessive given Sue’s assets (cash + retirement accounts) that could self‑fund years of expenses	Amount/duration are within statutory caps; assets (retirement accounts) are illiquid/taxed and Sue cannot work; court considered §8.052 factors (age, marriage length, earning ability, cruelty, etc.)	Affirmed — award within statutory limits and supported by the §8.052 factors
3) Finding of cruel treatment (grounds for divorce)	Insufficient evidence that Ed’s conduct rendered living together insupportable	Testimony and records of verbal abuse, at least one physical altercation, economic control, refusal to fund recommended mental‑health treatment, and post‑separation acts support cruelty finding	Affirmed — some evidence supports trial court’s cruelty finding; no abuse of discretion

Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018) (spousal maintenance is narrow and limited)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency standard for reviewing fact findings)
Syed v. Masihuddin, 521 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion review in family law and interplay with sufficiency review)
Pickens v. Pickens, 62 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (medical evidence not required to prove incapacity for maintenance)
Roberts v. Roberts, 531 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017) (proof of incapacity must be probative and can include lay testimony)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (factual‑sufficiency standard: set aside only if finding is against great weight and preponderance)
In re Marriage of McFarland, 176 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (retirement accounts may be illiquid for maintenance analysis due to tax/penalty consequences)
Amos v. Amos, 79 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2002) (upholding maintenance where disability and minimal resources supported award)
Newberry v. Newberry, 351 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (definition and standard for cruelty as ground for divorce)
Ayala v. Ayala, 387 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (conduct must render living together insupportable to constitute cruel treatment)