Stacey Everett v. Jamie Everett

Citations: 421 S.W.3d 918; 2014 WL 324577; 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 954Docket: 08-12-00035-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 28, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Stacey Everett appeals a trial court order that increased his spousal maintenance payments to Jamie Everett following their divorce on April 15, 2010. The final divorce decree awarded Jamie the marital residence and required her to secure financing within 12 months. If she failed to do so, the property would be sold. Stacey was responsible for paying the ad valorem taxes on the residence for 36 months, ending if Jamie remarried or cohabitated. He was also ordered to pay spousal maintenance, decreasing over three years, but terminating under specific conditions like death or remarriage.

In May 2011, Stacey filed a petition for enforcement, claiming Jamie did not secure financing. A hearing led to an order for the property to be sold if Jamie could not obtain financing. Stacey continued to be responsible for the taxes, with potential prorated payments to Jamie as spousal support if the residence sold within 36 months. After a motion for reconsideration was denied, Stacey appealed the trial court's clarification order, arguing it exceeded the court's authority under Texas Family Code. A corrected order on February 16, 2012, stated that if the residence sold before April 15, 2013, Stacey must pay Jamie an amount equal to the part of the sales price withheld for unpaid property taxes, classified as additional post-divorce maintenance. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court's clarifying order.

Appellant is mandated to pay Appellee monthly post-divorce maintenance, equivalent to one-twelfth of the annual property taxes on the marital residence, with payments terminating on April 15, 2013, if Appellee cohabits with someone of the opposite sex, or upon her remarriage. Appellant appeals the clarification of his financial obligations, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by increasing spousal maintenance payments through this order. The court's ruling on enforcement or clarification of divorce decrees is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court acts unreasonably or exceeds legal authority. Under Texas Family Code section 9.007, courts cannot amend property division finalized in a divorce decree; clarifying orders are only allowed when the original decree is ambiguous. Appellant argues that the trial court's order improperly converted a community debt into a spousal maintenance obligation, thus altering the substantive property division. The trial court believed it was clarifying the intent of the decree to provide Appellee with additional financial support for 36 months, but this conversion constituted a change, not a clarification, and is unenforceable under the statute. Appellee did not submit a response brief. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion, sustaining Issue One.

Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion by increasing his spousal maintenance payments to Appellee for two main reasons: (1) neither party was notified before the hearing that spousal maintenance modification would be discussed, leaving Appellant unprepared; (2) the relevant statute only permits decreases in spousal maintenance amounts. The procedural requirements for modifying spousal maintenance include filing a motion in the original court, providing proper notice to involved parties, holding a hearing, and establishing a substantial change in circumstances. The trial court failed to adhere to these procedures, constituting an abuse of discretion. Thus, Appellant's argument regarding the statute's limitation on increases does not need to be addressed. The trial court's judgment is reversed, and the order concerning post-divorce maintenance is set aside.