Paul D. Simmons v. Teresa A. Simmons
03-15-00008-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2015Background
- Paul and Teresa Simmons divorced in New Mexico on June 1, 1987; their Settlement Agreement (incorporated into the decree) awarded Teresa a formulaic share of Paul’s Conoco retirement benefits to be paid “if, as, and when” received by Paul.
- Paul worked for Conoco from Feb 12, 1979 to 2004 and cashed out $295,500.61 on November 1, 2004; he did not remit Teresa’s share.
- Teresa first learned of the distribution after August 2012 (per her testimony that a daughter told her); she registered the foreign New Mexico decree in Texas in April 2013 and filed a Petition for Enforcement on April 3, 2014.
- Paul pleaded affirmative defenses including the statute of limitations and laches; the trial court found Teresa discovered the distribution after August 2012, held the Family Code §9.003(b) two-year limitations applied, and entered judgment for Teresa of $48,757.60 plus fees and costs.
- Paul appeals, arguing the enforcement claim accrued on November 1, 2004 and was therefore time-barred under the two-year statute unless the discovery rule applies; he contends Teresa waived or failed to prove the discovery rule and did not exercise reasonable diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Teresa) | Defendant's Argument (Paul) | Held by Trial Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Code §9.003(b) two-year limit bars enforcement of a future-property award | Teresa argued her cause did not accrue until she discovered the distribution (after Aug 2012), so her April 2014 suit was timely | Paul argued the cause accrued when he received the funds (Nov 1, 2004), so the claim expired in 2006; discovery rule inapplicable or waived | Trial court held §9.003(b) applies but tolled by discovery rule; statute began after Aug 2012 and suit filed within two years; judgment for Teresa |
| Whether the discovery rule was properly pleaded and proven | Teresa asserted she discovered the distribution only after Aug 2012 and relied on the discovery rule to toll accrual | Paul asserted Teresa failed to specifically plead the discovery rule and failed to prove the injury was inherently undiscoverable or that she used reasonable diligence | Trial court accepted Teresa’s discovery date and applied the discovery rule |
| Whether Teresa’s injury (failure to receive retirement share) is inherently undiscoverable | Teresa argued she did not learn of the withdrawal until 2012 and thus could not have sued earlier | Paul argued retirement distributions are discoverable (QDROs, contacting employer, contacting ex or children) and Teresa—an experienced attorney—failed to exercise diligence; ergo discovery rule inapplicable | Trial court found Teresa’s discovery occurred after Aug 2012 (accepted her testimony) |
| Whether laches or other equitable defenses bar enforcement | Teresa argued laches did not apply | Paul argued long delay and prejudice justified laches | Trial court denied laches defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2001) (explaining discovery rule elements and public policy favoring repose)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (accrual of cause of action as a question of law)
- Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 1988) (discovery rule is an affirmative plea in avoidance that must be pleaded)
- Treuil v. Treuil, 311 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (application of discovery rule in enforcement of divorce-related retirement claims)
- Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. 1998) (standards for legal sufficiency review)