Howard Reginald WILLIS, Appellant v. Lola E. WILLIS, Appellee
533 S.W.3d 547
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Howard and Lola Willis married in 1995 and have three children; two sons are special-needs (autistic) and receive SSI. Lola has been primary caretaker and suffers from end-stage renal disease; she receives SSI and lives with her mother.
- Howard and Lola separated in 2009; Lola filed for divorce in October 2014. Bench trial followed; both parties testified.
- Trial court divided the community estate: awarded Howard several parcels and about $50,700 in funds; awarded Lola the community portion of Howard’s City retirement/deferred-comp accounts, $100 in bank funds, and a $60,000 judgment payable $1,000/month for 60 months.
- Trial court also ordered Howard to pay Lola $972/month spousal maintenance. Howard moved for new trial and the court later entered a new final decree; Howard appealed.
- On appeal, Howard challenged (1) the property division as an abuse of discretion and (2) the spousal-maintenance award as unsupported by evidence; he also contended Lola could not recover both the $60,000 judgment and spousal maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Howard) | Defendant's Argument (Lola) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the community estate | Division was disproportionately unfavorable to Howard (he received <12% by his calculation); no evidence of conduct justifying large disparity | Division accounted for Murff factors (property nature, earnings, health, obligations, children’s needs) and trial court had sufficient facts | Court affirmed property division; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether spousal maintenance was properly awarded under Fam. Code § 8.051 | No evidence Lola lacked sufficient property for her minimum reasonable needs; she testified she could live rent-free with her mother | Lola relied on her disability, caregiving burden, limited resources, and requested $1,000/mo either as maintenance or as part of property division | Court reversed maintenance award: evidence legally insufficient to show Lola lacked property for minimum reasonable needs; maintenance deleted |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction existed | Howard argued appeal timely after decree entered within plenary power following motion for new trial | — | Court held it had jurisdiction; appeal timely perfected |
| Whether both $60,000 judgment and maintenance could stand | Howard argued Lola requested one remedy, not both (moot if maintenance reversed) | Lola accepted either remedy; court had awarded both | Moot after reversal of maintenance; court did not address further |
Key Cases Cited
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (lists factors trial court may consider in just and right division of community estate)
- Hedtke v. Hedtke, 248 S.W. 21 (Tex. 1923) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review for property division)
- Stavinoha v. Stavinoha, 126 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (legal sufficiency is a factor in abuse-of-discretion review of property division)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence)
- Watson v. Watson, 286 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (insufficient evidence to support maintenance where spouse had property sufficient for minimum needs)