In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Leanne Farrell COLLIER and Robert Greg Collier and in the Interest of R.C.C., a Child
419 S.W.3d 390
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Greg Collier and Leanne Collier married in October 2005 and their son Colt was born March 6, 2007.
- The trial court granted a final divorce decree in February 2009, appointing Leanne sole managing conservator and Greg possessory conservator with Leanne's discretion over visitation.
- The court awarded custody and issued a possession order that Leanne could control Greg’s access, and made broad community-property findings pending further detailed rulings.
- Greg timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, including those on child support and possession; the court issued some findings in April 2009 and later.
- Greg appeals on ten issues, challenging conservatorship, the possession order, 153.073 rights, child support findings, division of community estate, reimbursement, discovery sanctions, and motion for new trial.
- The court reverses and remands: custody/possession and certain financial divisions require correction; other portions of the decree are affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sole managing conservatorship | Greg argues the presumption favoring joint appointment was not rebutted credibly. | Leanne points to Greg’s history of family violence as the basis to appoint sole conservator. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Leanne is sole managing conservator. |
| Possession order unenforceable | The order cedes complete discretion to Leanne and defeats meaningful access, unenforceable by contempt. | Order relies on Greg’s history to justify restrictions, with potential modification via therapy. | Possession order construed as complete denial of access; reversed and remanded for specific, enforceable terms. |
| Rights under section 153.073 | Court denied specific statutory rights without explicit best-interest findings. | Decree silent on these rights; no affirmative denial shown. | No explicit limitation found; issue overruled. |
| Statutorily mandated child support findings | Court failed to make required net resources and percentage findings for support deviation. | Court attempted to apply guidelines with available income; shortfall due to incomplete information by Greg. | Fifth issue sustained; need for mandated findings and remand. |
| Division of community estate / reimbursement | Inclusion of corporate property and the $100,000 reimbursement award were improper and punitive. | Evidence supported some aspects of property division; community debts not divided as claimed. | Sixth and seventh issues sustained; remand for new division; reimbursement award reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion requires guiding rules; review for arbitrariness)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (abuse of discretion; if no evidence or reference, error)
- Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2004) (conservatorship decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; some evidence supports)
- In re J.S.P., 278 S.W.3d 414 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2008) (containment of contempt orders requires specificity)
- In re R.D.Y., 51 S.W.3d 314 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (conditions on visitation permissible; total discretion without guidance is improper)
- Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2005) (property characterization and community presumption; tracing required to overcome presumption)