Nash Jesus Gonzales and Gonzales & Gonzales, P.C. v. Marissa Ann Maggio
03-14-00117-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 16, 2015Background
- Appellants Nash Gonzales and Gonzales & Gonzales, P.C. appeal from the Amended/Corrected Final Decree of Divorce in the 200th Judicial District of Travis County, Texas, after a jury trial on conservatorship with a geographic restriction on the children’s residence (Texas) and a court decision dividing the community estate.
- The trial court found Nash and Marissa Gonzales joint managing conservators with Marissa having the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence, restricted to the State of Texas.
- Two partnerships were involved: the matrimonial partnership Gonzales & Gonzales, GP, which dissolved in 2012, and a professional partnership; issues centered on whether the partnership’s client-files and related fees were community property to be divided.
- Parties disputed the treatment of the Partnership inventory of cases (Bucket 2 and Bucket 3) and whether the fees from those cases were properly included in the community estate, as well as the propriety of a fee split among lawyers not in the same firm.
- The court concluded the partnership assets and fees were to be divided as part of the community estate, with allocations (e.g., 60/40 in Bucket 3 and 50/50 in Bucket 2) and ordered certain tax-related and other ancillary provisions; the judgment was challenged on sufficiency of the evidence for the geographic restriction and on the treatment of partnership assets and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geographic restriction sufficiency | Gonzales argued the jury verdict on statewide Texas restriction lacks evidentiary support. | Gonzales contends the jury validly reflected the best interests and mobility considerations. | Remanded for new trial on geographic restriction due to evidentiary insufficiency. |
| Inclusion of partnership assets in community estate | Partnership cases and fees were not community property; partnership withdrew from cases, so no fee interest remained. | Trial court correctly included partnership assets as part of community estate and allocated fees. | Inclusion of partnership assets in community estate reversed; property division remanded. |
| Division of partnership fees among attorneys | Division among attorneys not in same firm violated Rules of Professional Conduct and public policy. | Court’s fee division was acceptable as just and right under inter-counsel arrangements. | Void as against public policy; revision required; fees excluded from community estate. |
| Evidence basis for Bucket 2/3 fee allocations | No adequate evidentiary basis to allocate Bucket 2/3 fees between ex-spouses; misapplication of law. | Record supported the allocations under the court’s interpretation of the partnership dissolution. | Allocations not supported by sufficient evidence; remand for proper valuation. |
| Future income division of former spouses | Court impermissibly divided future earnings and post-dissolution income. | Future earnings are not community property; only present assets should be divided. | Division of future income reversed; remand to correct the basis of property division. |
Key Cases Cited
- Augustson v. Linea Aerea Nacional-Chile S.A., 76 F.3d 658 (5 Cir. 1996) ((cited for analogy on evidentiary and discretionary considerations))
- Bader v. Cox, 701 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. App.–5th Dist. 1985) ((ownership and division of professional fees in dissolution contexts))
- Cruse v. O'Quinn, 273 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 2008) ((public policy and professional conduct implications in fee-sharing))
- In re Texas Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2006) ((abuse of discretion standard in agency-related actions))
- Deinhart v. McGrath-Stroatman, 2010 WL 4595708 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010) ((best-interest and residency restriction standards in conservatorship cases))