Nash Jesus Gonzales and Gonzales & Gonzales, P.C. v. Marissa Ann Maggio, 03-14-00117-CV

Appellants Nash Gonzales and Gonzales & Gonzales, P.C. appeal a December 9, 2013 Amended/Corrected Final Decree of Divorce in Travis County, Texas.
The dispute includes the Trial Court’s division of the Gonzales partnership’s contingency-fee interests in former cases and the handling of a June 19, 2012 dissolution-letter affecting representation.
Appellee Marissa Ann Gonzales seeks a geographic move for the children’s primary residence, including a potential move to New York, with testimony tied to that relocation.
The record allegedly omits portions of the proceedings surrounding the jury’s question, raising challenges under Keller, and the evidence is argued to be improperly dismembered.
Appellants contend the Trial Court exceeded its bounds by considering winding-up of the Partnership and by dividing community-fee assets, warranting remand for retrial on the children’s residence issue and reevaluation of the fee division.
The Appellant brief seeks reversal of the final decree, exclusion of contested fees from the community estate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the geographic-restriction verdict supported by the evidence?	Gonzales—jury’s latitude is constrained by the evidence.	Gonzales—evidence supports a move; the verdict should stand.	Verdict is not supported; should be set aside and retrial ordered.
Did the trial court properly divide the contingency-fee interests?	Letter of June 19, 2012 terminated partnership interests; reasonable client perspective shows abandonment.	Partnership rights persisted; no proper termination or winding-up found.	Trial court erred; fee interests should be excluded or remanded for further proceedings.
Was the record properly considered without dismemberment of evidence?	Court improperly rewrote evidence by taking statements out of context.	Record supports the court’s interpretation notwithstanding context.	Evidence cannot be dismembered; requires remand for proper evidentiary review.

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidence cannot be taken out of context in review of verdicts; complete context required)
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (limits on jury’s latitude; sufficiency review required)
Royden v. Ardoin, 331 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. 1960) (client-facing consequences of attorney-fee arrangements)
Gillen v. Williams Bros. Construction Co., 933 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. App.–Houston (14th Dist.) 1996) (record deficiencies may warrant new trial)
Falk & Fish, L.L.P. v. Pinkston's Lawnmower and Equipment, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2010) (contractual communications judged from reasonable-client perspective)
Holden v. Holden, 456 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2015) (review of issues tried by consent; no showing here)