Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On June 17, Gov. Rick Perry, R-TX, signed into law two bills of keen interest to family lawyers in that state. They address spousal maintenance and fraud on the community estate.
Spousal Maintenance
In some limited situations, Texas law permits a court to order post-divorce payments, known as spousal maintenance, from one spouse to the other. H.B. 901 significantly has modified Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, which is the section that authorizes spousal maintenance.
Many of the changes are essentially refinements of terminology, such as further emphasis that spousal maintenance is only authorized for individuals who lack sufficient property to provide their own minimum reasonable needs. The new changes also clarify language providing that maintenance is authorized only in marriages of at least a 10-year duration, in instances of violence within the family unit, and/or when the spouse is incapable of providing for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability.
Further, the new Family Code provisions clarify the rebuttable presumption that spousal maintenance is not warranted unless the spouse seeking support has exercised diligence in earning income and developing skills necessary to provide for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs.
Substantive Alterations
The new changes also include significant substantive alterations. Previously, the general rule was that three years was the maximum duration for spousal maintenance. However, the new law provides a stair-stepped increase in the maximum duration, which is related to the marriage duration. For example, a 20-year marriage now has a seven-year spousal maintenance maximum duration, and a 30-year marriage now is capped at a 10-year spousal maintenance maximum.
Additionally, the old rule was that the maximum monthly spousal maintenance amount was the lesser of $2,500 or 20% of the paying spouse's average monthly gross income. That cap has now been increased to the lesser of $5,000 or 20% of the paying spouse's average monthly gross income.
The new Texas Family Code changes include a self-contained section that identifies what is included in and excluded from gross income. Additionally, a new section addresses the situation of overpayment of spousal maintenance and authorizes the filing of a suit to recover such overpayments.
Fraud on the Community Estate
In 1998's Schlueter, et al. v. Schlueter, the Texas Supreme Court addressed claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy alleged by one spouse against the other in a divorce suit. Schlueter holds that the trial court sufficiently can remedy most spousal wrongs through its broad discretion in making a just and right division of the marital estate. However, a number of residual issues remained after Schlueter, which the Legislature now has addressed in H.B. 908.
New Texas Family Code provision ' 7.009 addresses situations where the trier of fact determines that a spouse has committed actual or constructive fraud on the community estate. In such instance, the trial court is required to calculate the value by which the community estate was depleted by fraud and then to calculate a “reconstituted estate,” which is defined as the total value of the estate that would have existed if the actual or constructive fraud on the community had not occurred. The trial court then has the discretion to divide the full reconstituted estate in a manner the court deems just and right. The new law specifically authorizes the court, in accomplishing the just and right division, to award the wronged spouse an appropriate share of the remaining community estate, a money judgment or both.
These changes certainly will alter the landscape for the family law practitioner and for families across Texas.
Jonathan J. Bates is a partner in Kinser & Bates in Dallas, TX, and is board certified in family law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He serves on the board of directors of the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists, and he is a fellow with the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. This article also appeared in The Texas Lawyer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.
On June 17, Gov. Rick Perry, R-TX, signed into law two bills of keen interest to family lawyers in that state. They address spousal maintenance and fraud on the community estate.
Spousal Maintenance
In some limited situations, Texas law permits a court to order post-divorce payments, known as spousal maintenance, from one spouse to the other. H.B. 901 significantly has modified Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, which is the section that authorizes spousal maintenance.
Many of the changes are essentially refinements of terminology, such as further emphasis that spousal maintenance is only authorized for individuals who lack sufficient property to provide their own minimum reasonable needs. The new changes also clarify language providing that maintenance is authorized only in marriages of at least a 10-year duration, in instances of violence within the family unit, and/or when the spouse is incapable of providing for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability.
Further, the new Family Code provisions clarify the rebuttable presumption that spousal maintenance is not warranted unless the spouse seeking support has exercised diligence in earning income and developing skills necessary to provide for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs.
Substantive Alterations
The new changes also include significant substantive alterations. Previously, the general rule was that three years was the maximum duration for spousal maintenance. However, the new law provides a stair-stepped increase in the maximum duration, which is related to the marriage duration. For example, a 20-year marriage now has a seven-year spousal maintenance maximum duration, and a 30-year marriage now is capped at a 10-year spousal maintenance maximum.
Additionally, the old rule was that the maximum monthly spousal maintenance amount was the lesser of $2,500 or 20% of the paying spouse's average monthly gross income. That cap has now been increased to the lesser of $5,000 or 20% of the paying spouse's average monthly gross income.
The new Texas Family Code changes include a self-contained section that identifies what is included in and excluded from gross income. Additionally, a new section addresses the situation of overpayment of spousal maintenance and authorizes the filing of a suit to recover such overpayments.
Fraud on the Community Estate
In 1998's Schlueter, et al. v. Schlueter, the Texas Supreme Court addressed claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy alleged by one spouse against the other in a divorce suit. Schlueter holds that the trial court sufficiently can remedy most spousal wrongs through its broad discretion in making a just and right division of the marital estate. However, a number of residual issues remained after Schlueter, which the Legislature now has addressed in H.B. 908.
New Texas Family Code provision ' 7.009 addresses situations where the trier of fact determines that a spouse has committed actual or constructive fraud on the community estate. In such instance, the trial court is required to calculate the value by which the community estate was depleted by fraud and then to calculate a “reconstituted estate,” which is defined as the total value of the estate that would have existed if the actual or constructive fraud on the community had not occurred. The trial court then has the discretion to divide the full reconstituted estate in a manner the court deems just and right. The new law specifically authorizes the court, in accomplishing the just and right division, to award the wronged spouse an appropriate share of the remaining community estate, a money judgment or both.
These changes certainly will alter the landscape for the family law practitioner and for families across Texas.
Jonathan J. Bates is a partner in Kinser & Bates in Dallas, TX, and is board certified in family law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He serves on the board of directors of the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists, and he is a fellow with the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. This article also appeared in The Texas Lawyer, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.