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

Posted by Michelle May O'Neil on July 4, 2011

In a national news report by Ellen Levya at KABC-TV, it seems prenuptial agreements are not just for people getting married anymore. Out of the more than 12 million unmarried couples living under the same roof in America, many of them are choosing to sign a pre-nup-like agreement in lieu of a marriage license.  Apparently, this is the latest legal trend aimed at protecting singles and their assets.

Why are all these unmarried couples taking this direction? In a poll of divorce attorneys, 48% said that they have seen an increase in unmarried couples headed to court over issues when there is a split. 

Now a growing number of these couples are choosing to sign co-habitation agreements. These are legally binding agreements for couples that share a home, but aren't married in the traditional sense.  They outline the couple’s expectations for their relationship, and also what happens in the event that the relationship ends, either by death or by simply deciding they're not going to live together anymore.

These co-habitation agreements can range from simple to complex, covering everything from medical decisions and health insurance. They can even cover who's responsible for debt and what to do with a house, cars, furniture, even pets.

Dr. Anne-Renee Testa, a relationship coach, says these agreements are just a sign of the times. That's because over the last 20 years, the number of unmarried couples living under the same roof has skyrocketed by more than 85%.

Dr. Testa says, "Any couple that is interested in being intelligent about their relationship should do something like this because it absolutely clears the air.”

In my own practice as a Family Law attorney in Dallas, I have found these co-habitation agreements to be beneficial to same sex couples as well as traditional couples that live together without being married.  They even work for people living together who are not romantically involved, such as roommates. 

The important thing is not to think of these agreements as a negative thing. It is not about control over the other person, or distrust in one another. It is really just a protection mechanism for both parties involved in the relationship, just like a prenuptial agreement for traditional married couples.

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

I recently came across an excellent article on the Wall Street Journal's website entitled, How Divorce Affects Your Social Security (Or Not).  As a Dallas divorce lawyer, I am frequently asked about post-divorce entitlement to social security benefits.  From the outset, it should be noted that unlike most other areas of martial property law, benefits arising from the Social Security Act are preempted by Federal Law from being characterized as community property.  Because of this preemption, we have to look to federal law to determine what affect divorce plays on social security benefits.

In general, in order to be permitted to collect benefits under your ex-spouse's earnings all five of the following must be true:

1. You marriage was at least ten years in length;
2. You cannot have remarried since your divorce;
3. You are at least 62 years old;
4. Your ex-spouse is entitled to social security benefits; and
5. The benefits you would be entitled to based on your own work history are less than the benefits you would receive based on your ex-spouse's work history.

So, if you meet all five of these requirements, then you'll likely be entitled to up to 50% of your ex's social security benefits.  Note that the amount your ex is entitled to as the divorced spouse does not have any impact on the benefit amount the other spouse receives.  For an "official" explanation of the above, check out the Social Security Administration's website. 

Hat tip to Kelly Greene at the Wall Street Journal for the idea behind this post.

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

I received a question from a client today asking how the court would determine the value of the piece of property in the community estate.  Often times, the parties will litigate over the value of a piece of property, so it is important to know how, in the absence of an agreement, the court will determine a property's value.

As a general rule, property is valued according to its fair market value as of the date the marriage is dissolved.  Texas courts have routinely defined fair market value as the price the property will bring when it is offered for sale for one who desires, but does not need to, sell, and is bought by a person who desires, but is not required to, buy.

If a piece of property doesn't have a fair market value, the property can be valued using its intrinsic value.  The intrinsic value of property is the actual monetary value of the property's use to the owner, excluding any fanciful or sentimental consideration.  In determining intrinsic value, the fact finder cannot consider any evidence of the property's fair market value, but can consider the property's original purchase price, its replacement cost, its uses, and any other facts that might shed light on its intrinsic value.

In sum, the majority of the time the court will determine value by using the fair market value approach at the time the divorce is granted.  Obviously parties frequently have differing opinions as to property values, but using the fair market value approach is a relatively objective means to obtaining a value.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

On July 8, 2009, the Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment for monetary damages in favor of one spouse against the other.  In Colvin v. Colvin, the husband sued his wife for personal injury damages caused by his wife in an automobile collision.  Wife was the driver of a car and the husband was the passenger.  Wife and a third party were in a collision, third party sued wife, and then husband intervened in the lawsuit and sued third party and wife (husband and wife were married at the time and are still so). 

The trial court awarded damages to husband against wife, and wife appealed.  On appeal, the Tyler Court Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.  Interestingly, the Colvin opinion does not mention whether or not husband and wife are still married. 

The Colvin opinion presents an interesting situation.  Under Texas law, community property is divided into two types: (1) joint management; and (2) sole management.  The community property characterization is important because if one spouse is held liable for a tort (i.e. negligence) during marriage, then the court may satisfy the judgment by looking to the community property jointly managed by the spouses as well as the sole management community property of the non-culpable spouse.  In result in Colvin is that in a sense the trial court could look to the community property jointly managed by the husband and wife, and the husband's sole management community property, to satisfy the judgment.  

As a Dallas divorce lawyer, our clients frequenltly are unaware of the concepts of joint and sole management community property.  In a nutshell, if either spouse is held liable for tortious conduct during marriage, then all property other than the non-culpable spouse's separate property may be used to satisfy the judgment. 

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