in the Matter of the Marriage of Thomas Eugene Vick and Diana Lynn Vick and in the Interest of M.A v. and L.L v. Children, 07-15-00019-CV

Background

Diana Vick (wife) and Thomas Vick (husband) married 1981; separated May 2010; husband filed for divorce August 2010. Temporary orders gave husband custody of two minor daughters and required wife to make temporary child-support payments and vacate the family home.
Two-day bench trial held December 2011; property division was later referred to a special master after the court made no final property-division ruling at trial.
Special master filed recommendations in May–August 2013; no record of the master’s hearings exists in the appellate record. Final decree of divorce entered September 26, 2014; the trial court modified the decree twice during plenary jurisdiction.
Wife, appearing pro se on appeal, raised issues about annuity valuation, geographic restriction on the children’s residence, a claimed child-support credit, the monthly child-support amount, denial of a de novo trial after the master, and denial of new trial.
Court of Appeals affirmed the decree except it reversed and remanded limitedly to correct the child-support amount because the decree fixed wife’s monthly support at $1,091.71 without evidentiary support.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vick)	Defendant's Argument (Vick)	Held
Valuation date for Variflex annuity	Trial court used special-master valuation date (May 16, 2013) rather than date of divorce; error and prejudicial	Court relied on master’s recommendation; wife failed to show prejudice or how value difference altered division	Overruled — no reversible abuse shown; wife failed to show harm
Geographic restriction on child’s residence	Trial court should have imposed a geographic restriction (or expressly state "without regard to geographic location")	Decree gave husband exclusive right to designate primary residence and omitted restriction; court’s order effectively allowed relocation	Overruled — no abuse shown; wife didn’t show best-interest basis for restriction
Child-support credit ($10,800)	Parties agreed or special master recommended $10,800 credit; decree omitted explicit credit	Record ambiguous; decree may have effectuated credit via property division but did not explicitly state it	Overruled — record does not show abuse of discretion
Amount of child support ($1,091.71)	Wife contends decree fixes $1,091.71 without evidentiary support; she presented evidence supporting $806.70 monthly	Court found parties agreed to $1,091.71 (court’s finding contested); other evidence could support different amounts	Sustained — court abused discretion by setting $1,091.71 without evidentiary support; remanded for recalculation
Right to trial de novo after special master	Wife argues she was entitled to de novo trial on objections to master’s recommendations	Master was appointed by agreement (not Rule 171); court’s order authorized a recommendation; no preserved complaint about appointment; no record what additional evidence wife would have offered	Overruled — no reversible error in denying de novo trial or in adopting master’s division
Denial of new trial (best interest of children)	Wife argues changed circumstances and that court failed to consider children’s best interest; sought new trial	Motion for new trial lacked the best-interest argument on appeal and later motions; appellate record contains no admissible extra-record evidence	Overruled — issue not preserved and appellate court cannot consider out-of-record facts

Key Cases Cited

McCain v. McCain, 980 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1998) (no pet.) (appellate review of family law orders requires showing of clear abuse of discretion)
McLane v. McLane, 263 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (pet. denied) (abuse-of-discretion test: arbitrary, unreasonable, or without guiding principles)
Brejon v. Johnson, 314 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (no pet.) (some evidence of probative character suffices to avoid reversal)
Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (writ denied) (standards for sufficiency of evidence supporting trial court’s family-law findings)
Gen. Tire, Inc. v. Kepple, 970 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. 1998) (no abuse where trial court bases decision on conflicting evidence)
Rafferty v. Finstad, 903 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (writ denied) (property division must be "just and right")
Cook v. Cook, 679 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1984) (no writ) (to reverse valuation error appellant must show overall division manifestly unjust)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) (standard for appellate reversal of child-support orders)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (a trial court abuses discretion by ruling without supporting evidence)
Simpson v. Canales, 806 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (consent to appointment of master generally waives challenge to referral)