Dallas Divorce Law Blog : Dallas Texas Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : O'Neil Attorneys Law Firm : TX Child Support & Custody Issues

I recently had a potential new client ask me how long they have to wait before the court can enter a divorce decree.  As a Dallas divorce attorney, I get this question a good bit.  Because of the frequency I receive this questions, I felt it would be a good idea to post the basis of Texas family law jurisdiction and the "waiting period" required before a court can enter a divorce decree.  

A suit for divorce must be filed in a county where the suit can be properly maintained.  Under the Texas Family Code, a suit for divorce is proper in the county where the parties have lived for the past 90 days.  In addition to the 90 day requirement, at least one of the parties has to have been a resident of Texas for the past 6 months.  Note that only one party to the divorce is required to meet the 6 month and 90 day residency requirements in order to bring a suit for divorce. 

Once the residency requirements are met, the next step is to file a suit for divorce in the appropriate county.  Once the suit is on file for at least 60 days, the court can enter a final decree of divorce. 

In sum, assuming the residency requirements are satisfied, the "quickest" someone can get a divorce in Texas is 60 days after they have filed their suit for divorce. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Houston Court of Appeals holds that any district court has jurisdiction to hear breach of contract actions based on provisions in a divorce decree. Chavez v. McNeely ___ S.W.3d ___, 2009 WL 1331854 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet. h.) (5/14/09)

Facts: In 6/01, husband and wife divorced. On 6/29/01, district court entered an “Agreed Final Decree of Divorce.” That agreement required wife to provide as much “as possible” for her husband’s needs, “limited only by her personal financial situation.” In 7/03, husband sued wife for breaching that provision in same district court. In 4/09, husband nonsuited his case and re-filed in Waller County. Trial court rendered judgment for husband on breach of contract. Wife appealed, claiming that trial court lacked jurisdiction and that the agreement was unenforceable.

Held: Reversed and rendered.

Court of Appeals Opinion: Trial court is a court of general jurisdiction under Art. 5, § 8 of Texas Constitution. Therefore, there is a presumption that it has jurisdiction unless exclusive jurisdiction had been conferred to the district court that rendered the decree. Under TFC § 9.001, a party “may request enforcement” of a divorce by filing suit in the court that rendered the decree. “May” is permissive, not mandatory. Therefore, the original district court did not have exclusive jurisdiction. Contracts are enforceable only if they are definite enough that a court can understand the parties’ obligations. Courts have held terms such as “as much as needed” and “fair market value” to be too indefinite to enforce. A requirement that wife provide as much as possible is also too indefinite to enforce. Accordingly, trial court erred in rendering judgment for husband.

Interesting distinction in Chapter 9 – that you can file a breach of contract action for enforcement of the divorce decree in a court other than the court that rendered the decree. I, a board certified family law specialist in Texas, wonder if this case will have the effect of encouraging forum shopping?

This commentary originally appeared in the June 2009 Section Report of the State Bar of Texas Family Law Section, where I serve as guest editor.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

San Antonio Court of Appeals holds that a trial court erred in dismissing suit for lack of standing when there was conflicting testimony. In re Y.B., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2009 WL 1405166 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet. h.) (5/20/09)

Facts: Wife adopted children in 12/04 before husband was in the picture. On 4/22/07, husband and wife married. On1/21/08, husband moved out of wife’s house. Husband filed a SAPCR seeking to be appointed MC of wife's children on 3/10/08. Wife filed a motion to dismiss and a plea to the jurisdiction. Trial court held a hearing with conflicting testimony about the extent of husband’s involvement with the children and granted the motion to dismiss. Trial court also awarded attorney’s fees to wife under T.R.C.P. 13.

Held: Reversed and remanded.

Opinion: TFC §102.003(a)(9) grants standing to any person who cares, controls and possesses a child for at least six months prior to and not more than 90 days before the date of filing of a petition. Witnesses gave conflicting evidence as to husband’s involvement with the children. Since there was a question of fact regarding husband’s standing, trial court erred in dismissing husband’s petition. Therefore, husband’s pleadings were not groundless, and trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees.

Section 102.003(a)(9) is probably THE most litigated section of the code right now. I currently have several cases pending in Dallas County family law courts which are testing the limits of this section. Look for more cases to come out on how far the courts of appeals, and maybe ultimately the Texas Supreme Court, will extend this vague section.

This commentary originally appeared in the June 2009 Section Report of the Texas Family Law Section newsletter, where I serve as a guest editor.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link