in Re Troy Paul
10-16-00359-CV
| Tex. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- Troy Paul sought mandamus relief after the trial court found an informal marriage between him and Destiny Spillers and awarded interim attorney’s fees and spousal support totaling $756,000.
- Destiny originally filed a counter-petition for divorce in Johnson County; her pleading alleged she met Texas six-month domicile and 90-day county residency requirements, but facts supporting 90-day residency postdated that filing.
- Destiny testified at an August 31, 2016 hearing that she signed a lease in Johnson County on May 31, 2016 and had lived there 91 days by the hearing, but did not file an amended petition showing residency after that date.
- The trial court concluded Destiny met the 90-day county-residency requirement and ordered the interim fees and temporary spousal support; Troy then petitioned for writ of mandamus.
- The appellate court previously addressed related issues and here reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the divorce to proceed without an amended petition establishing residency at the time suit was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Troy) | Defendant's Argument (Destiny) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day county-residency requirement of Tex. Fam. Code §6.301 was satisfied | Residency was not established at time the operative petition was filed; Destiny failed to file an amended petition showing compliance, so suit cannot proceed | Destiny had lived in Johnson County 91 days by the Aug. 31, 2016 hearing and thus satisfied the 90-day requirement | Held for Troy: residency requirement not satisfied because no amended petition was filed 90 days after May 31, 2016; trial court abused discretion |
| Whether the trial court could award interim attorney’s fees and other relief while residency was unresolved | Interim awards inappropriate because suit cannot be maintained absent compliance with §6.301; awards would waste resources and be reversible | Trial court exercised discretion to find residency and award fees pending resolution | Held for Troy: awards vacated as a consequence of finding residency not shown; mandamus relief conditionally granted |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy (adequacy of appeal) | Mandamus appropriate because §6.301 is mandatory and failure to satisfy it makes any final judgment likely reversible and wastes resources | Implicit: appeal could address errors after final judgment | Held for Troy: mandamus warranted — appellate remedy inadequate given likely reversal and resource waste |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying discovery on residency issue | Denial prevented full development of residency facts, prejudicing Troy | Trial court denied additional discovery as unnecessary | Court did not rest decision solely on discovery denial but found abuse of discretion regarding residency finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (stands for when mandamus review is appropriate to protect substantive or procedural rights and to balance benefits/detriments of original review)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying law to facts; misapplication is abuse of discretion)
- In re Milton, 420 S.W.3d 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (§6.301 residency must be established as of filing; amended petition required if residency achieved later)
- In re Green, 385 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (§6.301 is mandatory and akin to jurisdictional requirement controlling right to sue for divorce)
- In re Rowe, 182 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (residency must exist when suit is filed; later-acquired residency requires amended petition)
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus appropriate where benefits of review outweigh detriments)
- In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. 2008) (same principle regarding use of original mandamus)