in the Matter of the Marriage of Carrie Lanell Price and Nathan Doyle Price and in the Interest of A.D.P. and J.L.P., Children
10-14-00260-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 15, 2015Background
- Nathan and Carrie Price divorced after Carrie filed for insupportability; they have two minor children at issue. Trial resulted in jury finding Carrie sole managing conservator and a bench trial for property division.
- Nathan proceeded pro se on appeal and raised jurisdictional, evidentiary, conservatorship, and property-division complaints. His appellate brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1.
- Carrie was awarded sole managing conservatorship; Nathan was named possessory conservator.
- The trial court adopted Carrie’s proposed property division, roughly 51% to Carrie and 49% to Nathan, including division of retirement accounts, mineral interests, royalties, and awards of specific items (car, backhoe, Life Partners account, Winnebago).
- Nathan failed to preserve many complaints (no timely objections, directed verdict, JNOV, or motion for new trial) and relied on matters outside the record for several claims.
- Trial court found insufficient evidence to characterize certain items as Nathan’s separate property; characterization governed by community-presumption and tracing requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nathan) | Defendant's Argument (Carrie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Texas courts lack jurisdiction; dispute should be governed by church/God’s law | State divorce jurisdiction is proper; constitutional objections irrelevant | Court rejected Nathan’s religious/constitutional challenge and affirmed jurisdiction |
| Evidentiary & preservation | Challenges to admission of police report, letters, discovery failures, temporary orders, contempt—and venue change | Many complaints not preserved or are outside record; temporary orders supplanted by final decree; discovery relief not sought below | Court refused to consider unpreserved or extraneous matters; venue request untimely |
| Conservatorship (custody) sufficiency | Jury’s appointment of Carrie as sole managing conservator unsupported; Nathan should have sole custody | Jury verdict supported by evidence of Nathan’s abuse and other facts; Nathan didn’t preserve sufficiency complaints via required post-trial motions | Conservatorship challenge not preserved (no motion for new trial, JNOV, directed verdict); court would affirm on merits if considered |
| Property characterization & division | Certain items (Life Partners account, Winnebago, minerals, royalties) were Nathan’s separate property; unequal division unfair | Most assets treated as community; Carrie traced ownership for some items; trial court’s division was just and right based on evidence, credentials, fault, and needs | Court found Nathan failed to produce clear and convincing tracing for separate-property claims; property division reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (Texas courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over divorce despite Establishment/Free-Exercise challenges)
- Beard v. Beard, 49 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (final decree supplants temporary orders)
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review contempt on direct appeal)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (abuse-of-discretion standard for property division in divorce)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence when higher burdens apply)
- Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1975) (tracing and commingling rules for separate vs. community property)
- Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (treating sufficiency complaints as part of abuse-of-discretion review)