Joseph Samuel McCreary, III v. Laura McCreary
02-23-00187-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 22, 2024Background:
- Joseph and Laura McCreary filed for divorce in 2018 after a long marriage with one teenage child; litigation was prolonged and contentious.
- Temporary orders required Joseph to pay significant "family support" and various child-related and household expenses.
- Laura, during the proceedings, faced criminal charges (misdemeanor and felony) related to custody disputes; she lost teaching jobs due to these charges but retained qualifications as a teacher and behavioral therapist.
- The final decree awarded Laura the marital home, half of the community retirement assets, spousal maintenance, arrearages, and child support.
- Joseph appealed the spousal maintenance award; Laura cross-appealed the calculation of family-support arrearages.
Issues:
| Issue | McCreary (Joseph's Argument) | McCreary (Laura's Argument) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Spousal Maintenance | Laura was not entitled as evidence showed she could support herself; she had qualifications and jobs lost due to her own criminal actions. | She couldn’t meet minimum needs due to employment barriers caused by divorce stress and pending criminal charges. | Award reversed; evidence insufficient to show inability to support minimum needs, and cannot benefit from self-caused employment barriers. |
| Amount of Family-Support Arrearages | The trial court correctly admitted posttrial evidence showing nearly all required support was paid; owed only $6,000. | The court should have relied solely on trial evidence, which suggested over $70,000 owed; posttrial exhibit should not have been admitted. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting posttrial evidence or setting arrearages at $6,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018) (spousal maintenance is available only in narrow, limited circumstances)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion defined as acting without reference to guiding rules/principles)
- Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (standard for appellate review of abuse of discretion)
- Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (trial court’s judgment implies factual findings to support it)
- Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1984) (difference in outcome does not itself establish abuse of discretion)