Sarah Lansden Baker v. Mark Mitchell Baker
469 S.W.3d 269
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Sarah Baker (Mother) and Mark Mitchell Baker (Father) divorced after Father punched Mother, causing skull fractures and eye-saving surgery; Mother also alleged a broader history of abuse (pushing, throwing objects, spitting, name-calling).
- Mother sued in tort (assault, battery, terroristic threats, intentional infliction of emotional distress) and sought exemplary damages; the trial court struck those tort claims and exemplary damages as discovery sanctions but allowed personal-injury testimony for divorce purposes.
- The trial court appointed both parents as joint managing conservators (Mother had primary residence designation) and granted divorce based on insupportability; it found past family violence but declined to find it likely to recur.
- Mother appealed, challenging (1) the joint managing conservatorship given evidence of family violence, (2) imposition of death-penalty discovery sanctions striking her tort claims, and (3) the divorce ground (cruelty vs. insupportability); Father contested appellate jurisdiction as her notice was late.
- Appellate court concluded it had jurisdiction (Rule 26.3 extension granted), reversed the conservatorship ruling and the death-penalty sanctions, and remanded for new trials on conservatorship, Mother’s tort claims, and community property division (to avoid potential double recovery); all other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointment of Father as joint managing conservator was error given family violence | Section 153.004(b) bars joint managing conservatorship where credible evidence of physical abuse exists; Mother urged sole or at least exclusion from joint custody | Father argued the court’s finding of "family violence" wasn’t the same as the statute’s required "history or pattern of physical abuse" and that absence of a protective order/absence of future risk negates application | Reversed: trial court erred; finding of family violence (including the undisputed punch) triggers §153.004(b) and removes presumption for joint managing conservatorship; remand for new conservatorship trial |
| Whether trial court properly imposed death-penalty discovery sanctions by striking Mother’s tort claims | Sanctions were unjust and excessive; Mother sought non‑economic and economic damages but had produced medical records; striking tort claims precluded merits and was disproportionate | Father claimed he sought exclusion of damages and that striking claims was an appropriate remedy for discovery noncompliance | Reversed: abuse of discretion. Death-penalty sanctions were imposed (Father’s motion requested exclusion), but were excessive—trial court should have used lesser measures; remand for new trial on tort claims |
| Whether double recovery concerns require redetermination of property division if torts retried | Mother did not contest property division as compensatory for torts | Father argued property division may have compensated Mother for same conduct; Twyman prohibits double recovery | Remanded: because unequal property division may reflect consideration of the tort conduct, remand for re-division of the community estate alongside tort retrial |
| Whether divorce should have been granted for cruelty rather than insupportability | Mother argued cruelty was proven as a matter of law | Father and trial court treated insupportability as sufficient | Affirmed: trial court may choose insupportability; record supported insupportability finding and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Haase v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend, 404 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (untimely notice of appeal deprives court of jurisdiction absent extension)
- Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (trial court's conservatorship determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (standards for conservatorship review)
- TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (death-penalty sanctions require presumption that claims lack merit; sanctions must fit the offense)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (courts must consider lesser sanctions before imposing case-dispositive sanctions)
- Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery sanctions)
- Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993) (trial court must avoid double recovery when torts are tried with divorce)