Phillip Wade Hanna v. Lora Kay Hanna
11-15-00178-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Phillip Wade Hanna and Lora Kay Hanna divorced by agreed final decree on January 18, 2013; decree awarded Phillip “three boxes of photographs” and other items.
- Decree required Lora Kay to deliver the awarded items to her attorney for delivery to Phillip.
- Phillip never received the three boxes and filed a motion for enforcement on November 6, 2014 seeking delivery of the photographs under the divorce decree.
- At the enforcement hearing, Lora Kay testified she did not have the photographs, that she never took photos from the house, and that the house which stored the photos burned down; she denied possessing the boxes.
- Phillip testified the boxes had been in a car trunk behind the house and alleges Lora Kay removed them when she visited him in jail; the trial court credited Lora Kay’s testimony and denied enforcement.
- Phillip appealed pro se, arguing the trial court erred in denying enforcement; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to enforce divorce decree property division | Hanna contends he did not receive the three boxes of photographs awarded to him and the court should order delivery | Lora Kay testified she did not possess the photographs and the house (where photos were) burned; she denied having the boxes | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; it believed defendant’s testimony and found she lacked possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Woody v. Woody, 429 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (standard of review for post-divorce enforcement motions and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- In re A.L.S., 338 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (burden of proof on movant in enforcement proceedings)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (trial court as sole judge of witness credibility)
- OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C. v. White, 293 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (appellate review confined to the record; cannot rely on evidence outside the record)