F.M.G.W. v. D.S.W.
402 S.W.3d 329
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant F.M.G.W. appeals the community-estate division of a divorce judgment (Nov. 29, 2010; signed May 5, 2011).
- Divorce decree awarded Appellant a 2005 Lexus; Appellee D.S.W. was to pay the balance on the vehicle’s promissory note.
- Appellant also sought a new trial and reversal of the property-division portion but not the divorce or parent-child rulings.
- During the appeal, Appellant filed a separate justice-court action for $10,000 damages alleging mispayment related to the Lexus.
- Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as moot under the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine, arguing Appellant kept benefits of the decree while challenging it on appeal.
- The court held that Appellant accepted the benefit of the judgment and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acceptance-of-benefits bars the appeal | Appellant argues exceptions apply; she did not intend to accept benefits | Appellee contends Appellant accepted the benefits by pursuing justice-court enforcement | Yes, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to acceptance-of-benefits. |
| Whether economic necessity/exceptions shield the appellant | Appellant says economic duress explains the justice-court suit | No valid economic-necessity exception shown | No exception applied to permit appeal. |
| Whether the justice-court action affected jurisdiction or mootness | Action was separate and not an enforcement of the decree | Acted to enforce the decree and thus mooted the appeal | Appeal dismissed; mootness due to acceptance of benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas State Bank v. Amaro, 87 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2002) (acceptance-of-benefits doctrine governs standing and mootness in appeals)
- Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex. 1950) (cannot treat judgment as both right and wrong)
- County of El Paso v. Ortega, 847 S.W.2d 436 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993) (illustrates doctrine’s applicability in arresting appeal)
- Hanna v. Godwin, 876 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994) (no writ; acceptance of benefits governs appeal status)
- Graham v. Caballero, 243 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1951) (recognizes acceptance-of-benefits principle)
- Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (standing and mootness; benefits affect appellate jurisdiction)
- Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (narrow exceptions to acceptance-of-benefits doctrine)
- Harlow Land Co. v. City of Melissa, 314 S.W.3d 713 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (jurisdictional effect of accepting benefits; cannot be reacquired by later actions)
- Bloom v. Bloom, 935 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996) (illustrates mootness/standing concepts in appeals)