James Alexander Richards v. Karen Sue Richards
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3016
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- James and Karen married December 31, 1999 and separated/divorced; trial court dissolved the marriage September 10, 2009 which divided five boats as community property to James; January 5, 2010 hearing showed James sold two boats and had a third boat under contract for sale; Karen moved for dismissal under acceptance of benefits doctrine; court considered whether James accepted benefits and if exceptions apply; court found acceptance established and economic-necessity exception not shown; court dismissed appeal as moot on rehearing authority.
- Karen filed motion for temporary orders pending appeal based on boat sales; James contends the boat sales were economically necessary and otherwise disputes the property characterization; record shows James failed to provide monthly income/expense details to support economic necessity.
- The appellate court previously issued a memorandum opinion; on rehearing it vacated the prior judgment and now issues this opinion; the ultimate holding is that the appeal is moot due to acceptance of benefits.
- The doctrine requires a party who accepts benefits of a judgment to refrain from appealing that judgment; exceptions for economic duress or if reversal could not affect benefits are narrow.
- The court cites several authorities to evaluate acceptance of benefits and economic-necessity arguments, comparing factual detail and sufficiency of financial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal properly dismissed as moot under the acceptance of benefits doctrine? | Richards argues that the benefits were accepted under Waite and thus the appeal should be moot. | Richards contends exceptions or lack of actual benefit appraisal could permit appeal. | Yes; appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Did Richards establish the economic-necessity exception to acceptance of benefits? | Richards claims economic necessity due to near bankruptcy and high expenses. | Richards provided insufficient financial detail to prove necessity. | No; economic-necessity exception not shown. |
| Did the trial court err in the underlying division of property or related remedies? | Richards argues mismatch on property characterization and burdens of proof. | Karen argues proper application of law to facts; mootness precludes further review. | Not reached due to mootness; affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waite v. Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (estoppel when benefits accepted; economic-necessity analysis depends on specific financial details)
- Garza v. Garza, 155 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (economic-necessity supported by detailed income/expense data)
- Smith v. Smith, 143 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004) (economic-necessity requires concrete justification, not mere negative net worth)
- Carle v. Carle, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex. 1950) (foundation of acceptance-of-benefits doctrine in divorce contexts)
- Harlow Land Co., Ltd. v. City of Melissa, 314 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (procedural dismissal when appeal is moot under acceptance of benefits)
- Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 834 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (affidavits/evidence may determine proper exercise of jurisdiction in dismissal)