X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant Harold Wilson submits a restricted appeal from a default divorce judgment rendered in favor of appellee Veronica Wilson. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. It is undisputed that Harold Wilson received service of process and did not appear. He does not contest the propriety of the citation or the method of service. He thus has failed to show error on the face of the record regarding his claim that he had no notice of the trial setting. Wilson first contends that neither he nor his wife works and that the bulk � if not all � of the estate stems from a personal injury settlement he received after sustaining serious personal injuries, including an amputated leg. A spouse’s recovery for personal injuries during marriage is generally that spouse’s separate property. Texas Family Code �3.001(3). Portions of a personal injury award may, however, belong to the community estate, including damages for lost wages, medical expenses, and other expenses associated with the injury to the community estate. In this case, the facts surrounding the accident and personal injury suit are largely absent from the trial court record. Veronica Wilson testified at a hearing regarding temporary orders that Harold Wilson received “a fair amount of money when he had a leg crushed.” Veronica Wilson, moreover, acknowledges the settlement in her brief, but contends that her husband commingled the separate property. To speculate as to the settlement and what happened to its proceeds necessarily would require the court to look for error outside the face of the record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 and the cases interpreting it stringently require that a direct attack by restricted appeal may not rely on such extra-record speculation. The court declines to address Harold Wilson’s arguments about the amount of his personal injury settlement and its purported characterization as separate property. Given the dearth of evidence identifying, describing, and valuing the community estate, the court holds that there is insufficient evidence to support the division of assets. The decree refers to specific pieces of land, a promissory note, and other assets never described or valued for division during Veronica Wilson’s testimony. More importantly, it assesses a $275,000 personal money judgment against the defaulting defendant without any testimony upon which to base such an award. A just and right division of assets generally does not include an additional money judgment, absent evidence that a spouse secreted specific assets that properly belonged to the community estate. Moreover, the allegations in a petition for divorce are not admitted by a defaulting defendant � unlike other civil cases in which a defaulting defendant is presumed to admit the petition’s allegations regarding liability and liquidated damages. Texas Family Code � 6.701. OPINION:Bland, J.; Taft, Keyes and Bland, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.