in the Matter of the Marriage of Bryan Blackheart and Dawniel Blackheart
10-20-00073-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Bryan and Dawniel Blackheart divorced in Brazos County; Bryan (appellant) was incarcerated in Jefferson County at the time of filing.
- Bryan, proceeding pro se, sought a transfer of venue to Jefferson County and a continuance to retain counsel and complete discovery.
- At trial, the court denied Bryan’s motions, proceeded to divide the community estate, and entered a final divorce decree.
- Bryan appealed raising four issues: venue/continuance, alleged judicial interference/comments about his lack of counsel, alleged unfair community-property division, and denial of various motions (including a claimed failure to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial).
- The Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the venue question and abuse-of-discretion for property division and affirmed the trial court on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue transfer & continuance | General venue statute (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.002) required transfer to Jefferson where appellant was incarcerated; needed continuance to retain counsel/finish discovery | Family Code §6.301 controls divorce venue; Brazos County met Family Code residency requirements; continuance argument inadequately briefed and record showed prior continuance and discovery responses | Family Code governs divorce venue; general venue statute inapplicable; venue complaint rejected; continuance complaint inadequately briefed and overruled |
| Judicial comments/interference re: counsel | Trial judge interfered with attempts to retain counsel and made inappropriate critical comments; claims an exception should apply for federal inmates | Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys; no recusal motion filed; no authority provided for special exception | Issue inadequately briefed; pro se standard applies; complaint overruled |
| Division of community property | Division was manifestly unfair; trial court ignored appellant’s evidence of ~ $30,000 in contributions toward community debts | Appellee presented detailed evidence of separate-property expenditures and community debt payments supporting the division | Reviewed for abuse of discretion; record does not show manifest injustice or arbitrary action; division affirmed |
| Denial of motions / no hearing on new trial | Trial court erred in denying motions/objections and failed to hold hearing on motion for new trial | No recusal preserved; trial court not required to hold hearing on motion for new trial; unreplied motion may be deemed overruled by operation of law; appellant made no specific challenges to rulings | Complaints not preserved or meritless; motion-for-new-trial hearing not required; overruled; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Silverman v. Johnson, 317 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (de novo review of denial of motion to transfer venue)
- Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t, 886 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1994) (authoritative discussion of venue-transfer review)
- In re Hurley, 442 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (Family Code venue provisions control in divorce actions)
- Lutes v. Lutes, 538 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1976) (Family Code venue supersedes general venue statute in divorce)
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules)
- Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2018) (property division in divorce reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (preservation requirements for appellate review)
- Olsen v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 347 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (trial court generally not required to hold hearing on motion for new trial)
- Landis v. Landis, 307 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (same point regarding motion-for-new-trial hearings)