Fardad Aduli v. Valerie Aduli, 368 S.W.3d 805

Fardad Aduli (Iranian) and Valerie Aduli (French) married in 2003; they lived in Louisiana before moving to Texas; Fardad held an H-1 visa and Valerie an H-4 visa as his spouse.
In 2008 they moved to Houston; Fardad bought a Houston condo and paid utilities, mortgage, and a monthly living stipend for Valerie.
Valerie moved to Houston in early 2008, and the couple did not clearly separate in Fardad’s view; Valerie contends separation began before her move.
Valerie filed for divorce in October 2008 citing irreconcilable differences, cruelty, and adultery; Fardad filed a special appearance to contest Texas jurisdiction.
The trial court denied the special appearance but ordered temporary relief; a protective order restrained withdrawals and discovery provided, with both parties bound by that order.
Near trial, Fardad’s counsel sought to withdraw for good cause; Fardad sought continuance claiming he would be forced to leave the U.S.; he later filed for bankruptcy; a default judgment was entered against him when he did not appear at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly denied the special appearance	Aduli argues lack of Texas last marital residence and due process require dismissal	Aduli contends Texas has jurisdiction due to last marital residence and minimum contacts	Special appearance denied; jurisdiction upheld
Whether withdrawal of counsel on the eve of trial was proper	Aduli claims withdrawal harmed representation; continuance could have mitigated	Valerie contends withdrawal with good cause; no abuse of discretion	Withdrawal upheld; no error shown
Whether denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion	Aduli absent from country; desired time to obtain new counsel	Valerie argues absence unproven and continuance unwarranted	No abuse of discretion; continuance denied
Whether denial of new trial was proper under Craddock	Aduli asserts accident/mistake; meritorious defense; no undue delay	Valerie asserts failure to prove Craddock elements; adequate notice shown	New trial denied; Craddock elements not satisfied
Whether the property division was supported by evidence	Aduli claims valuation/evidence insufficient; departure from evidentiary rule	Valerie contends inventory admitted and valuation supported	Property division affirmed; evidence sufficient and proper use of inventory/notice

Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (jurisdictional question reviewed de novo with factual findings presumed when none given)
BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (implied findings reviewed for sufficiency; standard for jurisdictional review)
Goodenbour v. Goodenbour, 64 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (last marital residence analysis under Goodenbour in context of marital separation and intent to maintain marriage)
Dawson-Austin v. Austin, 968 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. 1998) (distinguishes cases based on degree of Texas contacts; useful for minimum contacts analysis)
Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (minimum contacts and fair play/federal due process considerations in jurisdictional analysis)