Stephen Patrick McAleer v. Karen Christopher McAleer
394 S.W.3d 613
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Marriage to Karen McAleer on May 1, 2008; Karen filed for divorce April 23, 2010; Stephen answered April 28, 2010.
- Trial court proceedings led to a decree of divorce with disputes over property characterization/division, reimbursements, and attorney’s fees.
- Stephen repeatedly changed counsel; Rokohl (initial attorney) became unavailable due to health; Cossum later substituted as attorney of record.
- Discovery was hindered when Rokohl did not produce documents and was unresponsive; discovery period was largely open, then effectively closed.
- Trial court denied Stephen’s motion for continuance to allow more discovery; the record shows Stephen attempted to obtain documents and substitute counsel.
- Court reverses the property characterization/division and remands for a new trial on those issues; ongoing issues (e.g., reimbursements, fees) remain unresolved by this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a continuance | McAleer claims need for time to obtain discovery and substitute counsel | Court exercised discretion appropriately given discovery delays | Abuse of discretion; remand for new trial on property issues |
| Characterization of the homestead as community property | Property should be characterized per records and due process | Reversed; remanded for new trial on property characterization/division | |
| Divestiture of Stephen’s separate property and personal items | Separate property not properly offset or divided | Remanded for new trial on property division decisions | |
| Stephen’s reimbursement claims | Requests should be properly considered/evaluated | Remanded for new trial on reimbursement issues | |
| Attorney’s fees award to Karen | Requests for fees should be addressed in light of discovery and trial conduct | Not resolved on appeal; remanded with property issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1986) (right to counsel; withdrawal requires time to obtain new counsel)
- Landers v. State Farm Lloyds, 257 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances)
- Villegas, 711 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1986) (withdrawal of counsel requires safeguards to prevent prejudice)
- Roob v. Von Beregshasy, 866 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (continuance and counsel issues in dissolution actions)
- In re Spooner, 333 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (orig. proceeding; discovery and continuance considerations)
- Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (factors for discovery-related continuances)