in the Interest of T.N.L., a Child
06-15-00039-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 18, 2015Background
- Post-divorce enforcement/clarification petition sought to enforce/clarify the 2008 decree's house provisions and allocations.
- Trial court granted offsets and awarded the residence to Carlos, altering the original division of property.
- Samuel contends the enforcement order cannot modify the 2008 decree’s substantive property division.
- Carlos sought to offset Samuel’s alleged missed mortgage payments, repairs, and social security offsets against Samuel’s equity in the home.
- Samuel appeals asserting the court exceeded its authority by altering the substantive division of property; appellate standard requires no modification of final decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court abuse discretion by changing substance of property division? | Lanier argues court cannot alter final division. | Lanier contends enforcement/clarification allowed with offsets. | Yes; court abused discretion by altering substantive division. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. 2009) (abuse of discretion standards in enforcement orders)
- In Re Marriage of McDonald, 118 S.W.3d 829 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2003) (enforcement cannot modify final decree)
- Pearson v. Fillingim, 322 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2011) (limits on enforcement/clarification amendments)
- Schneider v. Schneider, 5 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.App. - Austin, 1999) (guiding principles for enforcement orders)