Roberts v. Roberts, 531 S.W.3d 224

Background

Martin and Margaret Roberts divorced after a marriage beginning in 1997; two children were born of the marriage. The original final decree (2010) awarded Margaret a disproportionate share of marital assets and spousal maintenance ($1,550/month for 36 months, then $1,000/month indefinitely). Martin appealed.
On first appeal the court held $32,000 had been mischaracterized as Margaret’s separate property and remanded for a just-and-right property division and spousal-maintenance determination. Roberts v. Roberts, 402 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (en banc) (no pet.).
On remand the trial court reduced Margaret’s separate-property finding from $41,000 to $9,000 but did not reallocate the $32,000; it declined to set new percentage splits and reiterated the original property awards, and it reaffirmed Margaret’s spousal-maintenance award, finding her "disabled.”
Margaret’s proof of disability consisted solely of her lay testimony describing multiple vague symptoms (headaches, fatigue, arrhythmia, nerve pain, anxiety, cognitive slowing); she had no medical diagnosis, treatment, or causal-link evidence and took no medication other than pregnancy-related care.
Community assets at divorce included an unencumbered home (stipulated $140,000), two cars (with liens), Martin’s Navy retirement, other retirement/savings totaling about $112,905.44, and credit-card debt of $22,960. The final decree allocated disproportionate percentages favoring Margaret (e.g., house, 60% of Navy pension, larger share of some accounts).

Issues

Issue	Martin's Argument	Margaret's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in awarding spousal maintenance based on disability	Margaret failed to prove she lacks sufficient property for minimum needs and failed to prove an incapacitating disability; her testimony is insufficient	Margaret is disabled and therefore eligible for maintenance; lay testimony can establish disability	Reversed: lay testimony was insufficiently probative to show an incapacitating disability preventing employment; maintenance award removed
Whether the trial court’s property division (post-remand) was just and right	Remand required reallocation because $32,000 was mischaracterized as her separate property; trial court’s failure to reallocate resulted in a manifestly unfair division	Trial court retained original awards and found division continues to be just; declined to affix percentages on remand	Reversed and remanded: division was manifestly unfair given the error about the $32,000 and the erroneous disability finding; property division must be redetermined

Key Cases Cited

Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (factors and standard for just-and-right division of marital estate)
Reina v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 611 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1980) (factfinder may infer incapacity from circumstantial evidence and lay testimony)
Pickens v. Pickens, 62 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (party’s testimony may support a disability finding but must be probative and tied to inability to work)
Garza v. Garza, 217 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006) (appellate review framework for abuse of discretion in property division)
Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1984) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)