Kim Blackston Clogston v. Curtis P. Clogston, 03-14-00479-CV

Kim and Curtis Clogston divorced in 2006; the decree awarded Kim the website PFQ and, ambiguously, continued use rights to the domain.
Kim petitioned to enforce the decree about six-and-a-half years after entry, seeking to transfer the PFQ domain www.pfq.com to her.
Curtis argued the action was time-barred by statutes of limitations for enforcement or post-decree division, and that the action sought division, not enforcement.
Kim argued she sought clarification to effectuate ownership of the PFQ website and domain, asserting domain rights were necessary for ownership of the business.
The hearing produced only argument; no evidence was offered by either side; the trial court denied the petition without stated grounds.
On appeal, the court reviews for abuse of discretion and affirms if the record supports denial due to lack of evidence supporting relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the petition time-barred by statute of limitations?	Kim	Curtis	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion due to lack of evidence
Did Kim prove entitlement to enforced transfer of the domain as essential to enforcing the decree?	Kim	Curtis	Affirmed; record lacked evidence supporting relief

Murray v. Murray, 276 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (abuse of discretion review standards)
Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., Inc., 739 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1987) (burden to prove abuse of discretion rests on party)
Pace Corp. v. Jackson, 284 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. 1955) (affirmative relief requires proof of right to relief)
Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (pleadings are not evidence)
Chavez v. McNeely, 287 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (enforcement procedures under Family Code are permissive)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, Inc. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (abuse of discretion standards; evidentiary support required)