Sareen v. Sareen
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5256
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Rajeev Sareen and Anjana Sareen were married for 28 years before Anjana filed for divorce.
- Trial court granted divorce, named them joint managing conservators, with Anjana determining primary residence.
- Rajeev was ordered to pay child support of $2,500 per month and standard possession was awarded to Rajeev.
- The court divided the martial estate and found Rajeev engaged in waste, constructive fraud, and breached fiduciary duties.
- The court awarded Anjana spousal maintenance and ordered Rajeev to pay Anjana $80,000 in attorney's fees (with $40,000 for securing/collecting child support as additional child support).
- Appellate fees were awarded to Anjana’s counsel if Rajeev prevailed on appeal; Rajeev appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficient evidence for spousal maintenance | Sareen contends evidence was insufficient. | Sareen asserts lack of sufficient proof for maintenance. | Records insufficient on missing testimony; court affirms despite insufficiency due to record gaps |
| Attorney's fees incurred to enforce child support | Fees were for enforcement of child support. | Evidence insufficient to show fees for enforcement. | Record insufficient; affirm given presumption of evidence in incomplete record |
| Child support above presumptive amount | Child needs justified higher support than presumptive amount. | Evidence does not show extra need beyond presumptive. | Insufficient complete record; affirm under presumption of support findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Rittenhouse v. Sabine Valley Ctr. Found., Inc., 161 S.W.3d 157 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (who bears burden to transcript full record varies by rule vs. statute)
- Nabelek v. Dist. Attorney of Harris County, 290 S.W.3d 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (object to missing transcript required to preserve error)
- Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, 190 S.W.3d 736 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005) (require timely complaint to preserve for appellate review)
- Rittenhouse v. Sabine Valley Ctr. Found., Inc., 161 S.W.3d 157 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (burden on record completeness for review)
- Englander Co. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. 1968) (complete record necessary for vital finding challenges)
- Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1987) (appellate review requires timely preservation of issues)
- Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (partial-record considerations limit review where record is incomplete)
- Sandoval v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 25 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (inadequate record limits sufficiency review)