Navigating Divorce: Insights from Fry v. Fry with Local Divorce Attorneys

This blog post discusses the recent Texas case of Fry v. Fry (2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1675), shedding light on interpreting property division agreements in divorces involving local divorce attorneys and private businesses, such as the Busby Law Firm.

Background

In 2018, a couple (H and W) divorced, with the assistance of local divorce attorneys, and reached an agreement incorporated into their final decree. The decree addressed, among other things, a jointly owned business. With the assistance of his local divorce attorneys, the agreement awarded H complete ownership of the business, including its accounts. W, represented by her divorce attorneys, was entitled to receive $3,000 bi-monthly payments designated as salary from the business for four years. Additionally, the decree stipulated that H was responsible for settling any outstanding business debts during the specified period.

Dispute Arises

W started receiving the payments, but they eventually stopped. She, with the help of her Houston divorce attorneys, filed a motion seeking clarification of the decree and a judgment against H for $75,000 in unpaid amounts. During the court hearing, H, represented by his divorce attorney, argued that the business shouldn't be liable because it wasn't named as a party in the divorce. He also claimed no personal responsibility for the payments.

Trial Court's Decision

The court acknowledged that the decree's wording could be improved. However, it ultimately clarified the terms, holding H accountable for the payments and awarding W the requested $75,000 judgment.

H Appeals the Decision

H appealed, arguing that the court unjustifiably modified the property division by making the business responsible for the payments. He further contended that the retroactive application of this modification violated his rights.

Court of Appeals Reasoning

The Court of Appeals (COA) disagreed with H's arguments. The COA pointed out that the decree specifically directed H to make the payments to W from the business accounts he now controlled. This, according to the COA, indicated that the trial court's decision was a clarification, not a modification, of the original property division agreement.

The COA further explained that upholding H's argument would essentially modify W's share of the marital estate, which is not allowed.

Lastly, the COA addressed H's concern regarding retroactive application. The Texas Family Code (TFC) Section 9.008(c) prohibits courts from giving retroactive effect to clarifying orders used for contempt purposes. However, the COA clarified that the order in this case did not create new obligations for H. He was simply obligated to fulfill his existing responsibilities under the original decree, and the retroactive application did not alter W's rights negatively.

Conclusion

The Fry v. Fry case reminds divorcing couples, and their Houston divorce attorneys, to ensure that property division agreements, particularly those involving businesses, are clearly and comprehensively drafted to avoid future disputes. If you are going through a divorce and have questions regarding property division or other related issues, consulting with an experienced family law attorney in Houston, such as those at the Busby Law Firm, is crucial.

Disclaimer

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with Michael Busby, a Houston Divorce Lawyer, for guidance on divorce cases.