Renee Sheree O'Carolan v. Gary D. Hopper, 414 S.W.3d 288

Divorce final May 1, 2000; decree awarded Hopper most community property and O’Carolan spousal maintenance of $36,000 over two years.
Appellate court remanded in 2002, holding trial court erred by awarding Hopper all community property and only maintenance to O’Carolan.
On remand, trial court split 55% to O’Carolan and 45% to Hopper, with Dripping Springs property awarded to Hopper and debts/equitable rights adjusted.
O’Carolan challenged six aspects: enforcement of maintenance, new maintenance order, third‑party fraud, 2000 valuation vs 2009 value, retroactive property title to Hopper, and sanctions.
Court reversed in part to allow enforcement claim under a ten‑year dormancy for spousal maintenance, and remanded for further proceedings; affirmed other rulings including property valuation as of 2000 and the Dripping Springs property to Hopper.
Final judgment: remanded enforcement claim; affirmed summary judgment on continuation of maintenance; fraud claim moot; sanctions upheld; remanded/affirmed property division with Dripping Springs property to Hopper and related financial adjustments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforcement of spousal-maintenance award; timely under statute	O’Carolan: enforcement claim not barred by limitations; ten‑year dormancy applies.	Hopper: enforcement barred by limitations; spousal maintenance enforceable only via four‑year period.	Enforcement claim not barred by limitations; remanded for proceedings.
Eligibility for continuation of original spousal maintenance	Continuation is proper under Family Code if bases exist for ongoing support.	Original award not statutorily eligible for continuation; res judicata bars new award.	Original award not eligible for continuation; summary judgment in Hopper’s favor affirmed.
Valuation date for division of community property	Value should reflect post‑divorce changes; 2009 value should be considered.	Value should be as of divorce date (2000) with adjustments for post‑divorce changes.	Value as of 2000 upheld; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Retroactive award of Dripping Springs property to Hopper	Part of remand; error to retroactively divest O’Carolan of title.	Court had discretion on remand to divide community estate; could award entire property to Hopper.	Court acted within discretion; Dripping Springs property awarded to Hopper with related debt and equity claims.
Discovery sanctions and attorneys’ fees	sanctions excessive or improper; no basis for $2,000 fee.	sanctions justified for incomplete discovery responses; proportional.	sanctions upheld; fees affirmed.

Huff v. Huff, 648 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. 1983) (ten-year dormancy governs enforcement of judgments in child support/spousal maintenance contexts)
Kuykendall, 957 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997) (ten-year dormancy begun at judgment signing for child support; no direct analogue for spousal maintenance)
Goetz v. Goetz, 567 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1978) (remand of property division kept within marital-property framework)
Crane v. Crane, 188 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (whether maintenance duration implies disability-based continuation)
Dunn v. Dunn, 177 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (recognizes discretionary periodic review of maintenance under 8.054(b))
Carlin v. Carlin, 92 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002) (whether continuation relates to disability findings and decree language)
Squire v. Squires, 673 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1984) (application of Huff to revival of past-due obligations)