Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Linda Nell Barnard filed for divorce from Frank Elmar Barnard in Denton County. Her pleading stated that the pair were domiciled in Denton County and Texas for the requisite time periods. She alleged insupportability and cruelty as grounds for divorce. In June 2002, the trial court heard Linda’s application for a protective order against Frank, where she alleged he had committed family violence against her and their two daughters. In her affidavit, she told of several incidents where Frank had threatened to hurt her, one where he threatened to kill their dog, another where he had approached a neighbor about hiring someone to kill Linda, and that he had pushed her on occasion. The trial court granted the protective order. Linda and Frank each submitted written settlement proposals on property division and custody issues. During a hearing in chambers, in which neither side presented arguments, the trial court ruled on community property, conservatorship and child support issues. A month later, on Oct. 16, 2002, the trial court signed a divorce on the grounds alleged by Linda. The trial court divided rental property owned by the two in a 55/45 ratio; the remainder of the property was divided in a 60/40 ratio, both in favor of Linda. Frank appeals. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded. The court holds that the divorce was supported, but that a new trial must be held on the division of property. The court rejects Frank’s attempt to argue that there was no proof that he met the county or state residency requirements. Frank’s own counter petition for divorce stated that he was a resident of Denton County and a domiciliary of Texas for the required time. His judicial admissions are enough to establish proper jurisdiction and venue. The court upholds the trial court’s entry of divorce on cruelty grounds. The court finds that because the affidavit in support of the protective order was filed with the same court considering the divorce, the presumption is that the trial court took judicial notice of the affidavit’s contents. There is some evidence, therefore, supporting the trial court’s finding of cruel treatment. The trial court’s method for dividing the community property was an abuse of discretion, however. The trial court effectively divided the entire estate without the benefit of testimony or any evidence presented at a contested trial. A transcript of the in-chambers meetings indicates that the trial court anticipated a future prove-up hearing, but that one was never held. The entire division, then, was based on the parties’ written settlement proposals. “Under [Family Code] section 7.006, the legislature contemplates that the trial court will conduct a contested hearing or trial in the absence of an agreed settlement. . . . In the present case, because the parties did not reach an agreement, the trial court erred by relying on proposals as a basis for granting the divorce and its property division. There was no evidence to support the trial court’s property division in the absence of an agreed settlement or a hearing.” The court agrees that a trial court can take judicial notice of facts set forth in a party’s inventory, the court further holds that “unless a party’s inventory is admitted into evidence at trial, it cannot be relied upon as evidence.” Based on this decision, the trial court also sustains Frank’s complaint over the characterization of his separate property as community property. OPINION:Livingston, J.; Cayce, C.J.; Livingston and Gardner, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.