Snodgrass v. Snodgrass
332 S.W.3d 653
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Final divorce decree labeled agreed, but Kimberly did not sign; Pine Creek awarded to Michael, Oakbrook awarded to Kimberly subject to refinancing by May 24, 2008.
- Kimberly failed to refinance Oakbrook by the deadline and failed to begin mortgage payments as ordered; Oakbrook remained in Michael's name with existing mortgage.
- Michael sought enforcement in October 2008, including contempt; Kimberly sought clarification claiming ambiguity about Oakbrook and $25,000 payment.
- December 1, 2008 bench enforcement order found nine contempt violations, held Kimberly could comply, denied clarification, and awarded fees; ordered Oakbrook deeds and vacatur.
- Court later held Enforcement Order impermissibly modified decree, improperly classified Oakbrook as Michael’s separate property, and ordered vacatur and deed-signing; remanded.
- Kimberly filed mandamus; court denied relief on non-contempt portions; declined to void contempt order; dismissed mandamus as to contempt issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court properly deny clarification of the decree? | Snodgrass argues decree ambiguous re Oakbrook and $25,000 if refinancing fails. | Snodgrass contends the decree is clear and requires clarification only for ambiguity. | No error; decree unambiguous; denial affirmed. |
| Did Enforcement Order impermissibly modify the divorce decree by changing Oakbrook's status? | Oakbrook disposition should follow the decree; no modification allowed. | Enforcement order could resolve ambiguities and compel compliance. | Yes error; Enforcement Order impermissibly modified decree. |
| Did the Enforcement Order properly determine Oakbrook as Michael's separate property? | Oakbrook remained community property per decree. | Oakbrook properly characterized as Michael's separate property after failure to refinance. | Yes error; improper characterization. |
| Did the Enforcement Order improperly require Kimberly to vacate Oakbrook and sign a deed conveying all interest to Michael? | Enforcement should enforce existing division without coercive property transfer. | Order necessary to effectuate refinance and final property division. | Yes error; orders to vacate and deed signing improper. |
| Is Kimberly entitled to mandamus relief regarding contempt finding for failure to refinance? | Contempt finding void if no ability to refinance proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Contempt findings valid; defense insufficient. | Relief denied; contempt order not void; mandamus petition denied on contempt-related issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. 2009) (divorce decree ambiguity standard; interpret decree as a whole)
- Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003) (divorce decree property division when not expressly specified)
- Koepke v. Koepke, 732 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1987) (division of community property; cannot divide separate property)
- Busby v. Busby, 457 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1970) (divorce decrees; proper division of property)
- In re Corder, 332 S.W.3d 498 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (burden to prove involuntary inability to comply with order)
- Ex parte Rosser, 899 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (contempt defense; burden on movant to show willful noncompliance)
- Ex parte Sanchez, 703 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. 1986) (involves involuntary inability defense to contempt; standard of proof)
- In re Evans, 130 S.W.3d 472 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (appeal from enforcement; review limitations in contempt context)