In the Matter of the Marriage of Kelly Hettinger and Andrew Hettinger and in the Interest of H.C.H., K.C.H., and M.G.H., Children v. the State of Texas
13-23-00403-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 18, 2025Background
- Kelly and Andrew Hettinger were married and jointly owned a business (Tex-Mex Recycling); they had three children.
- Kelly filed for divorce in 2019 on grounds of adultery and sought sole custody, child support, and amended her petition to include an IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) claim against Andrew.
- The jury initially found for Kelly on IIED, awarding $1.5M in damages, and the trial court ordered $6,000/month in child support—well above guideline.
- The trial court categorized a pending personal injury lawsuit Kelly had filed against a third party (Abby) as community property and awarded it to Andrew.
- Kelly’s business valuation expert was struck by the trial court due to discovery violations; Kelly challenged this on appeal.
- The appeal consolidated cross-appeals from both parties challenging various divorce decree rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IIED: Whether Andrew’s conduct supported a finding of extreme/outrageous conduct for IIED | Andrew’s conduct was extreme/outrageous and caused severe distress | Conduct was not legally sufficient for IIED; alternate remedies exist | Evidence was legally insufficient for IIED; verdict reversed, Kelly takes nothing on IIED |
| Child Support: Whether $6,000/month exceeded children’s proven needs under Tex. Fam. Code | Amount was proper and supported by trial testimony | No evidence of children’s needs beyond guidelines; lifestyle not relevant | Evidence insufficient; trial court abused discretion; remanded for recalculation of child support |
| Separate Property: Whether Kelly’s personal claims against Abby were her separate property | Trial court wrongly awarded her separate property (personal injury claims) as community | Kelly failed to prove claims were separate; claims presumed community | Error to treat as community; remanded for full redetermination of property division |
| Expert Witness Striking: Whether striking Kelly’s business valuation expert was proper | Strike was unjust due to illness (COVID) and limited prejudice | Kelly failed to comply with discovery and timely supplement/provide docs | No abuse of discretion; multiple discovery violations; trial court affirmed in striking Camp’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency standard: evidence must be more than a scintilla for a jury finding)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (IIED is a gap-filler tort, not usable when other remedies exist)
- Kroger Tex. Ltd. P’ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (defines extreme and outrageous conduct standard for IIED)
- GTE Sw., Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999) (conduct must be more than rude, insensitive, or trivial to qualify as outrageous)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (trial court's discretion for discovery sanctions)
- Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977) (trial court cannot divest a spouse of separate property in a divorce)
- Chu v. Hong, 249 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. 2008) (personal injury claims are the separate property of each spouse)