### NUM BER 13-09- 080- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
M A RIO GILB ERT O C A NA LE S, A pp ellan t,
v . LIZ BET H RIQU EL M E, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 4 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la T his is an app eal f rom a f inal decre e of d iv orce and t rial court’s order den y ing M ario Gi lb e rt o C a n a l e s ’ s p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h re s p e c tt o a n i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d i s pute. Can ale s rais es three i ss ues on appe al, incl udi ng a jur is dic ti onal arg ument pe rt ain ing to the in it ia l c u s t o d y d is p u t e , t h e d ivi s io n o f co m m u n it y p r o p e rt y , a n d t h e a wa rd o f re t ro a c t ive2

chi ld suppo rt

. W e l ift t he abat ement order , rein sta te t he c aus e a n d a f f ir m in par

t, and dis mis s for

l ack of jur is dic ti on, i n par

t. I. F A CTUA L B A CKGRO UND A

. The Texa s Proce eding Ap p e lle e , L izbe th Riqu e lm e , f ile d a p e ti ti o n fo r di vorc e aga in stCa n a le s in Hid a lgo Cou nty on N ov ember

19, 2007. She soug ht cus tody of the c oupl e’s three c hil dr en, M .G. , M.J., and T.L . She also so ught a just and right divi sion of t he ma rital p rope rty

. Canale s,
w ho w as not s er

v ed until M ar ch 10, 2 008, re spond ed by fil ing a s peci al appearance and
a m o ti on to di smi ss the act ion pursuantto the U nifor m Ch il d C ust ody Ju ri sdi cti on and Enforc ement A ct (“ UC CJ EA” ), req uest ing the tr ial cour t to dis mis s for l ack

of subj ect -mat ter jur is dic ti on ov er

the ini ti al chi ld cus tody

i ss ues. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 152. 001- .317 (V er non 200 8)

. The tr ial cour t deni ed Can ale s’ s spec ial appearance and ru led that ithad subj ect -mat ter

j ur is dic ti on w it h respec t t o the init ial custod y m atters. T hereafter, the tr ial
cour t c onduc ted a final hear ing and entered a decree of di v or ce on D ecember 29, 2008. B. The Wa shington Procee ding Can ale s f ile d a p e titi on for div or ce on M ar ch 6, 20 08, i n the st ate o f W ashi ng ton. On A pr il 2, 2008, the W ashi ng ton cour t entered temporar

y orders sta ti ng thatthe chi ldren
w ere to b e return ed to W ashin gton. T he W ashin gton cou rt’s order state d tha t it w ould deter mine cus tody

onc e the ch il dr en w er e retur ned t o W ashi ng ton a nd th at t he order
w oul d be subj ect to modific ati on at “t he UC CJ EA confer ence. ” On Ma y 29 , 2 0 08, Ri q uel me’s W ashi ng ton c ounse l filed a mot ion to dis mis s t he W ashi ng ton p ro ceedi ng
. The W ashi ng ton cour

t sig ned an order

delay ing a ru li ng on the motion to dis mis s p endi ng the3

outc ome of “t he appe al of the jur is dic ti onal cl aim. ” The re cord re flect s that the W ashi ng ton
cour t uns ucc ess fully

att empted t o c ommunic ate w it h the Tex as cour t. C. A bateme nt In a Ma rc h 2010 abatementorder , this Cour t deter mined thatW ashi ng ton w as the pr oper st a t e t o d e t e r mi n e t h e i n i t i a l c u s t o d y i s s u e s fo r r e a s o n s t h a t w e r e i t e r a t e in our anal y si s o f appell ant’ s first is sue. W e ordered th e H ida lg o C ounty tr ial co urt t o c onfer w it h the W ashi ng ton c our

t. On June 7, 20 10, t he tr ial co urt i nformed t his C our t t hat t he W ashi ng ton c our

t had dete rmi ned t hat W ashi ng ton is the home state of the c hil dr en and that iti s t he ex cl usi v e tr ibu nal to deter mine all i ss ues re lat ed to the cus tody of the c hil dr en. Thereafter , t his C our

t asked the par

ti es for a sta tus updat e. Cou nsel for C anal es sug g est s t o thi s C our

t t hat h is se cond and t hird iss ues ar e ri pe for thi s C our

t’ s rev iew

. In the s econd i ss ue, C anal es urg es that the t ri al court abuse d i ts dis creti on i n di v idi ng the communi ty

proper ty

. Hi s t hird i ss ue is that the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n order ing
re troact iv e c hil d s uppor t. C ounse l for R iq uel me i nformed t his C our t th a t he ag re es w it h appel lan t’ s a nal y si s a nd c oncl usi on of the “fact ual situ ati on and leg al is sues at bar .” Bo th partie s urge that w e lifto ur p rev ious aba tem ento rder and rule on the rema ining tw o issues,
w hic h w e do in thi s memorandum opi nio n. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW –J URI S DI CT I ON Fi rs t, w e w il l re it erate o ur hol din g w it h resp ectto appel lan t’ s jur is dic ti onal iss ue. As
w e prev iou sl y

st ated in our

abat ement order , c ons tr u ct io n of the UC CJ EA’ s h ome st ate prov is ion , as co difie d i n the famil y co de, i s a q uest ion of law thatw e rev iew d e nov o. Powell v. Sto ver

, 165 S.W .3d 3 22, 3 24 ( Tex . 200 5)

. Subj ect -mat ter jur is dic ti on maynot4

be w aiv ed or

co nferred by

es toppel

. See Tex. Ass’ n of Bus. v. T

ex. Ai r Con tr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 4 40, 4 45 ( Tex . 199 3) ; Seligman-Hargis v. Hargis , 1 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d 5 8 2 , 5 8 5 (T e x. App.–D all as 2006, no pet .)

. The UC CJ EA w as int ended t o ma ke t h e d eter minat ion of jur is dic ti on straig htforw ard and to deter abduc ti ons of chi ldren. Powell , 165 S.W .3d a t 326

. III . T H E UC CJE A T he T exas FamilyCode prioritizes home -state jurisdiction an d provides as follows: (a ) Ex ceptas other

w is e prov ide d in sec ti on 152. 204, a c our t of thi s s tate h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o ma k e a n i n i t i a l c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r mi n a t i o n o n l y

i f: (1 ) thi s s tate is the home s tate of t h e c hil d on the d ate o f the commenc ement of

t he proceed ing , or

w as the h ome st ate o f the c hil d w it hin si x

months before the c omm e ncementof the proceed ing and the chi ld is absent f ro m thi s s tate but a parent or person act ing as a pa re nt c onti nues to l iv e i n thi s s tate; (2 ) a c our

t of anot h e r sta te do es not h av e j ur is dic ti on unde r Subdi v is ion ( 1) , or

a c o u rt o f

t h e home s tate of the c hil d has decline d to exercise jurisdiction on the ground thatthis state is the more appropr iat e forum u nder Sec ti on 152. 207 or

152. 208, and: (A ) the c hil d and the c hil d's parents , or t he c hil d and at lea st one parentor a person act ing as a pa re nt, hav e a significa n t co nne ction wi th th is state ot her tha n me re phy si cal presenc e; an d (B ) su b st a n ti a l e vide n ce is a vail a b le in th is s ta te co n ce rn ing the c hil d's ca re , protec ti on, t ra ini ng , and personal re lat ion shi ps; (3 ) a ll c o u rt s h a vin g ju ri s d ic t io n u n d e r Su b d ivi s io n (1 ) or (2 ) h a ve decl ine d to ex er ci se jur is dic ti on on the g ro und t hat a co urt of thi s s tate is the more a p p ropri ate for um to deter mine the cus tody of the c hil d under

Sec ti on 152. 207 or

152. 208; or (4 ) no cour

t of any other sta te w oul d hav e jur isd ict io n under the cr it er ia spec ified i n Subd iv is ion ( 1) , ( 2) , or ( 3)

.5

(b) Sub section (a) i s t he e x clusiv e jurisdictiona l basis for ma king a child cus tody dete rmi nati on by

a c our t of thi s s tate. (c) Physical presence of , or p erson al jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not neces sar

y or s uff ic ien t t o make a c hil d c ust ody dete rmi nati on. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 152.201

. The family

co de define s “ home s tate” as “ the s tate in w hic h a c hil d l iv ed w it h a parent .

. . for at l eastsi x cons ecut iv e months immedi atel y before the c ommencement of a child custo dy proce edin g . . . .” Id. § 15 2.102( 7)

. The w ord “ live d ” co n notes phy si cal pr esenc e. Powell , 165 S.W .3d a t 326

. In Powell , t he s upreme co urt e xplai ned t hat t he Le g i s l at ure us ed t he w ord “ l i v ed ” to av oi d “ c om pl i c at i ng t he d et er mi na ti on o f a c hi l d’ s h om e state w ith inquiries into the state of mind o f the child o r the child’s adu lt caretake rs.” Id

. (ci ti n g Escob ar v
. Rei

si nger , 133 N .M

. 4 8 7 , 64 P.3d 514, 517 ( 2003) ). The U CC JEA sug ges ts t h a t t he c hil d’s phy si cal l ocat ion i s t he c entral factor to be c onsi dered w hen deter mini ng the chi ld ’s h o m e st ate. Id

. Fu rt h e r, se c t io n 1 5 2

. 2 0 1 (a ) i s t h e e xc lu s ive jur is dic ti onal bas is for mak ing a chi ld cus tody dete rmi nati on by

a c our t of thi s s tate. Seligman-Hargis v. Hargis , 186 S.W .3d a t 585

. W e determi ne jur is dic ti on based upon the ci rc umstan ces as they ex is ted on the date that sui t w as filed

. See In re Burk , 252 S.W .3d 736 , 740 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 8, orig. proceed ing); In re McC oy , 52 S.W .3d 297, 304 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, or ig . proceed ing ). IV. A P P LI CA TI ON A . Ho me S ta te Ju risd ict io n Wit h Res pectt o M. G. and M .J. This ca se commenc ed w hen R iq uel me fil ed her or ig ina l peti ti on in a Tex as cour t on Nov embe r

1 9 , 2 0 0 7

. T h e e v i d e n c e w a s u n d i s p u t e d t h a tM

. G

. a n d M

. J

. , t h e tw o ol der6

children , liv ed in W ashin gton f rom August 200 4 throu gh Octobe r 3, 200 7. T he reco rd is uncle ar w here t he ch ildren reside d f rom Oct obe r 3, 200 7, un til Ri quelme f iled for div orce in N o v e mb e r 2 0 0 7

. A t t h e h e a r i n g , R i q u e l me t e s t i fi e d t h a t i n M a y 2 0 0 7 , s he mov ed to Tex as w it h T.L., her

yo ung estchil d, and stay ed at the home of her si ste r and brother-i nlaw

. At t hat t ime, the tw o ol der ch il dr en re mained in W ashi ng ton. Ri q uel me cl aimed her int ent w a s to e st a bli sh re si dency i n Tex as. Sh e furt her tes ti fied th at s he retur ned t o W as hi ng to n on J un e 15 , 20 07 , an d r em ai ne d th ere un ti l Oc to be r 3, 20 07 . Thus , R i q ue l me
w as act ual ly

phy si cal ly

presenti n Tex as w it h her y oung est chi ld onl y from someti me i n M ay throu gh June 15, 200 7—a six -w eek period. W hen she retu rned to W ashin gton, Can ales, the c hil dr en, a nd R iq uel me st ay ed atthe home the co upl e ow ned i n W ashi ng ton. Ri q uel me, i n fact, di d notdi sput e t h a t the c hil dr en had not b een i n Tex as for s ix months pr ior to her fil ing the div or ce act ion

. At t h e h ear ing to deter mine jur is dic ti on, C anal es introd uced t h e af

f idavit of Brian And erson , principal of Our Lad y

of Lou rdes scho ol in Vanc ouv er , W ashi ng ton. H e av er re d tha t t he ol destch il d had been en rolled in the p re sc hool prog ra m from Sept ember 5, 2006, throug h J une 15, 2007. Bo th of the ol der chi ldren w er e also enroll ed for the 2 007/200 8 s chool y ear
. He als o s w or e tha t bot h chi ldren at tended sc hool i n W ashi ng ton u nti l Oct ober 2, 2007. Ri q uel me ag re ed th at t he chi ldren had not l iv ed c onti nuous ly i n Texas f o r m or e tha n s ix months pr ior

to fili ng the div or ce and c ust ody

ac ti on. In respo nse, howev er, Riq uelm e po ints to: e vid e n c e of Canale s’s conta cts in Tex as; an inc ide nt t hat o cc ur re d i n N ov ember 2007 w here R iq uel me tes ti fied th at C anal es forced her

and the c hil dr en outof the c ar i n M onterrey , M ex ic o; t he fact that the o lde r child re n’s pas spor

ts w er e proces sed in Hou sto n; t he fact that the c hil dr en had re cei v ed7

d e n ta l c a r e fro m R i q u e l me ’ s b ro t h e r i n M cA l l e n , T e x a s ; a n d t h e fa c tt h a tR i q u e l me l e ft W ashi ng ton i n M ay

2007 for purpo se s o f permanent ly resi din g i n Tex as. Sh e does not dispu te, h owev er, tha t the children had resided in W ashin gton since 2004 or, in the case of T.L., t he y oung estch il d, s inc e bi rt h. Riq uelm e urges thatthe ab ove- c it e d evidence supp orts the Te x as trial court’s jur is dic ti on ei ther

under the “h ome st ate” or

“ si g nific ant c onnec ti o n ” p ro vi si ons of the UC CJ EA. W e di sag re e. The r ele v ant t ime per iod i s t he s ix -mont h ti me peri od precedi ng Nov ember

19, 2007. W hil e R iq uel me tes ti fied th at s he l eft W ashi ng ton i n M ay 2007 to
es t a b lish residency in Texas, it is undispu ted thather tw o olde st children rem aine d in W as hi ng to n w i th t he i r

fat he r . There i s abs ol ut el y no ev i de nc e th atTe x as w as t he h om e sta te of anyof

the chi ldren at the operati v e ti me bas ed on the s tandard s et forth i n Powell

. See 16 5 S. W .3 d at3 28

. F ur th er , th e ev i de nc e es ta bl i s he d th atW as hi ng to n w as t he h om e sta te of M .G. and M. J., the tw o ol der C anal es chi ldren. Riq uelm e argues prima rily t hatsh e w as a residen t of T exas d uring the required six
mo nth period. How ever, she spen t only abo ut si x w eeks in Texas prior to f iling the div orce action in Nov em ber 20 07, in additio n to the t ime sh e w as in Te x as be fore f iling the div orce pet ition. Neverthe le s s, her residen cy is of n o imp ort in det ermin ing the trial court’s jur is dic ti on ov er

the ini ti al cus tody

matte r; rather

i t is the phy si cal prese nce of the c hil dr en that is dete rmi nati v e. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 152.102 (7 ); Powell , 165 S.W .3d a t 328 (s tati ng thatthe chi ld’ s p hy si cal l ocat ion i s t he c entral factor to be c onsi dered w hen deter mini ng a c hil d’s home s tate)

. Fur ther , R iq uel me’s “ si g nific ant c onnec ti on” arg ument shoul d notbe a ppl ied to jur is dic ti on bec ause itsh oul d be employ ed onl y w hen Tex as is not the h ome st ate a nd i t app ears t hat n o other st ate coul d as ser t home sta te j ur is dic ti on. In8

re Oates , 104 S.W .3d 5 71, 5 78 (Tex

. App.–E l Paso 2003, or ig

. proceed ing ). The UC CJ EA prov ide s t hat i f a chi ld has a home s tate, thathome s tate has subj ect m a tt e r ju ri sdi cti on. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 152.201 (a ). Here, W ashi ng ton w as the ho me st ate o f M.G . and M. S., the tw o ol der

ch il dr en. B. Ho me State Juri sdic tion With Respect To T.L. W it h respec t t o the y oung estch il d, T.L., w e concl ude that un der the str ic t defin it ion of “home sta te,” nei ther Tex as nor

W ashi ng ton w as her home s tate. Pu rs uant to s ect ion 152.201 (a )( 2) (A ) and ( B) , w e l ook to w hether the chi ld a n d a t le a st o n e parent h ad a si g nific ant c onnec ti on w it h thi s s tate other than mere phy si cal pres e nce and s ubst anti al
ev ide nce is av aila b le c oncer nin g the chi ld’ s c ar e, protec ti on, t ra ini ng and personal
re lat ion shi ps. Id . § 152.201 (a )( 2) (A ) and ( B)

. At t he hear ing , t here w as no ev ide nce that T.L. had si g nific ant c onnec ti ons w it h the Stat e of Tex as. The e vide n ce b e fore t he tr ial co urt w as that Ri q uel me had a si g nific ant
con n e c t i o n a n d a fa mi l y s u p p o rtg ro u p i n T e x a s
. H o w e v e r , t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e i n t ro d u ced per tai nin g to T.L. w as that she w as bor n in W ashi ng ton stat e and had li v ed there f ro m bi rt h,
w it h the ex cept ion of family v acat ion s, the t ime per iod that her mother w as absen t from Tex as in an at tempt to es tabl is h resi dency i n Tex as, and so m e t im e duri ng Oc tober and Nov ember

2007 before h er

mother fil ed for div or ce. W e find that the W ashi ng ton s tate w as in the p ro per

pos it ion to ass ert j ur is dic ti on ov er the in it ia l cus tody

di sput e reg ardin g T.L. Can ale s’ s first is sue is su sta ine d.9 V. D I VI SI ON OF C OM M U N I TY P ROPERTY By app ellant ’s sec o n d issu e, he argues thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in divi ding the cou ple’s com mu nity prop erty as it did

. First, he argues tha t the trial court
aw arded tw o pie ces of real proper ty to Ri q uel me w it hout ex pla nati on. The final j udg ment
v alue d the comm unity property at $58 0,0 00. The trial court awarded R iquelme the cou ple’s
re si dence i n the Stat e of W ashi ng ton as w ell as a home the coupl e ow ned in Me x ic o. The
cour t al so aw arded t o R iq uel me al l of Canal es’s r eti re ment ac countthatw as v alu ed at $55,000 , and req uired C anal es to mak e the mort g ag e pay ment on the W ashi ng ton h ome. Tri al cour

ts hav e w ide di sc re ti on i n maki ng a j ustand ri g ht di v is ion of mari tal proper ty ; w e rev iew

a tr ial court 's div is ion for an abuse of dis creti on. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7.0 01 ( Ver non 200 6) ; Mu rf f v . Mur ff, 615 S. W .2d 6 96, 6 98 ( Tex . 198 1) ; Zor il la v. Wahid, 83 S. W .3d 2 47, 2 5 2 ( T e x . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, no p et.)

. The tes t for abuse of dis creti on i s whe th e r th e tr ial co urt ac ted a rb it ra ri ly or unreason abl y , or

w hether i t ac ted
w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. See W orford v. Stamper, 801 S.W .2d 108, 109 ( Tex . 199 0) ; see als o Loz ano v . Loz ano, No. 13-08 -0 0536- CV , 2009 W L 48828 16, at * 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Dec. 17, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). A tr ial co urt doe s n ot abuse it s d is creti on i f ther e i s s ome ev ide nce of a subs tanti v e and probati v e c haract er to suppo rti ts deci si on. Gar za v . G ar za, 217 S.W .3d 538, 549 (Tex

. App.–S an Ant oni o 2006, no pet .) ; see als o Loz

ano, 2009 W L 48828 16, a t * 4. A “ jus t and r ig ht” di v is ion d o es not
re q uire a tr ial cour

t to div ide the mari tal est ate int o eq ual shares. Mu rf f, 615 S.W .2d a t 698
- 99 & n. 1 (recognizing thatco mmunity proper ty need not b e eq ual ly

di v ide d) ; Schu ster v. Schu ster, 690 S.W .2d 6 44, 6 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1985, no w ri t)

. W hen di v idi ng the mari tal10

est ate, a tr ial co urt has broad d is creti on to co nsi der v ar iou s fact ors i ncl udi ng , butnot li mite d to, dis par it ies of inc omes, ear nin g capac it ies of t he par ti es, financ ial obl ig ati ons, fault in the br ea k up o f t h e m a r r i a g e , b e n e fi t s w h i c h t h e p a rt y n o t a t fa u l t w o u l d h a v e d e r i v e d fr om a cont inu ati on of

the marr iag e, educat ion of each spouse, and the n ature of the proper ty to be di v ide d. Mu rf

f, 615 S.W .2d at 698 -99. As a revi ewi ng court, w e presu me the trial court
ex er ci sed it s d is creti on proper ly

. Id. at 699 ( ci ti ng B e ll v. B ell, 5 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 0 , 2 2 (T e x. 197 4)). Fi rs t, w e note that Can ale s w as not pr esent at the final hear ing . His at torney infor med the tr ial co urt t hat h e w as not t here bec ause ci rc umstan ces bey ond hi s c ontrol pr ev ented him from bei ng present

. It does not appear that Can ale s attempt ed to c onti nue the h ear ing unti l a ti me w hen he coul d be pr esent . The ev ide nce at t he f inal hear ing
cons is ted s ole ly

of the e x aminat ion and cross -e x aminat ion of Ri q uel me. At t he hear ing , R iq uel me tes ti fied w it h re sp e ct t o c lot hin g , j ew elr y , and personal it ems t hat w er e s ti ll in the W ashi ng ton h ouse. Sh e furt her i ndi cat ed th e c oupl e’s co mmunity prop erty include d f urnitu re, televisi o n s e t s , t oys, a hom e in Mex ico, an d a ho me in W as hi ng to n. Sh e v al ue d th e no n- r ea l p rop er ty a t rou g hl y

$ 20 ,0 00

. S he a l s o v al ue d s om e of the c hil dr en’ s i tems at $4 ,500 and proper ty l oca te d at the h ouse in Me x ic o at $6,500. Acc ordin g to Ri q uel me, th e c oupl e’s ’ v ehi cl es w er e w orth $4 7,600. Sh e v alu ed th e W ashin gton ho me at $40 0,0 00 a nd th e on e in Mex ico at $1 00, 000 . Th ey owned the hou se in Me x ic o out ri g ht an d had re cei v ed $23, 600 i n rental s. She ind ic ated that they sti ll ow ed $228,00 0 on the W ashi ng ton h ome. She opined that the eq uity i n the W ashi ng ton p ro per ty is $47, 000. R iq uel me al so sai d that Can ale s had approx imat ely $55, 000 i n hi s reti re ment
acc ount. There w as ev ide nce that Ri q uel me w as not e mploy ed and had notbeen employ ed11

out side th e hom e during the m arriage. Di sparity i n ea rning capacity i s a facto r w eighing i n fav or o f aw ardi ng a di s prop or ti on at e s ha r e of t he c om mu ni ty p rop er ty t o th e l ow er

i nc om e ear ner
. See O’Car

ola n v . Hopper , 71 S.W .3d 529 , 532 (Te x . App .–A ustin 2002 , no pe t.). U l ti ma te l y , R i q ue l me as k ed the co ur t t o aw ard he r

t he W as hi ng to n ho me , th e ho me in Me x ic o and the reti re ment ac co u n t. Sh e a sked th e c our t t o c onsi der

the fact th at Can ale s o w ned por

ti ons of tw o ranche s i n Mex ic o as w ell as some off ic es, a shed a nd an apar tment as his se p a ra te p ro p erty i n det er mini ng her

aw ard. On c ro ss ex aminat ion , couns el for C anal e s was unabl e to authent ic ate s ev eral ex hib it s reg ardin g the v ar iou s proper ti es. R iq uel me summed up her tes ti m o n y b y re q uest ing “ hal f of ev er ythi ng .” Sh e als o ex pla ine d tha t C anal es ow ed her money for chi ld and spous al suppo rt that had bee n ordered, b ut no t pai d. In th is instance , the burde n w as up on Can ales to show tha t the div ision w as so dis propor

ti onate that itw as manifestl y unjustor

unfair

. Hedtke v. Hedtke , 248 S.W . 21, 23 (Tex . 192 3) ; see als o T rial v. Tr ial , No

. 0 4 -0 5 -0 0 4 4 8 CV , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 9 9 3 7 7 2 , a t*1 (T e x. App .–S an An ton io July19, 20 06, no pet.) (mem

. op. ). The re w as evidence before the court to s uppor

t R iq uel me’s proper

ty v alu ati on. Here, C anal es did not av ail hi mse lf o f the oppor tuni ty to prov ide v alu es on any of the p ro per

ty at the fin al hear ing

. S e e V a n n er son
v. Vanner

son , 857 S.W .2d 6 59, 6 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 19 9 3, w ri t den ied ) (n oti ng thatbec ause appel lan t did not appear at tr ial , he present ed no ev ide nce conc er nin g charact er iz ati on of prope rty ); LeBl anc v. LeBl

anc , 761 S.W .2d 450, 45 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch risti 1988) , aff’

d, 77 8 S. W .2 d 86 5, 86 5 ( Tex

. 19 89 ) ( s ta ti ng th at ap pe l l an t di d not av ail hims elf of

the oppor

tuni ty to prov ide v alu es on proper ty ); see als o Dea n- Gr

off v. Gr off , N o.12

13- 06- 00085- CV , 200 7 W L 3293540, at *4 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti N ov . 8, 2007, no p et.) (m e m
. o p
. ) ( s t a t in g t h a twh e re a p a rt y d o e s n o tp ro vid e a n y va lu e wit h re s p e c tt o p ro p e rt y, he m ay notcomp lain on app eal of a trial court’s lack of

comp lete informa tion). T hus, Can ale s i s n ot i n a posi ti on at thi s poi nt to compl ain of the l ack of infor mati on. Beca use the tr ial co urt w as not req uired to make an equa l dis posi ti on of the communi ty proper ty and t h e re is n o t h in g i n t h e re c o rd sh o win g t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s r u li n g wa s m a n if e s t ly u n ju s t , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. VI. R ETR OA C TI VE C HI LD S UP P ORT ByCa n a l e s ’ s t h i rd i s s u e , h e u rg e s t h e t r i a l c o u rta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y re q uir ing him to payRiq uel me retroact iv e chil d suppor t for a per iod i n w hic h C anal es had pos ses si on of the c hil dr en. The par ti es ag re e t h a t th e standard of r ev iew i s a buse of dis creti on. Bec a u s e t he a buse of

discretion sta nda rd is w ell known and w e ha v e iterate d it earlier in thi s o pin ion , w e w il l not reit erate i t here. The tr ial co urt s ig ned te m p o ra ryorders a w ardin g ch il d s uppor t i n the amount of $2, 250 per mo nth f rom May 20 07 throu gh Au gust 200 8, for a tota l of $36 ,00 0. T he reco rd show ed th at t he tw o ol der chi ldren w er e re si din g in W ashi ng ton unti l Oct ober 2007, w hen Ri q uel me l eft W ashi ng ton w it h al l three of the chi ldren. Can ale s a rg ues that he w as re q uired to pay

R iq uel me retroact iv e c hil d s upport f or fiv e months i n w hic h the tw o ol der chi ldren had been w it h hi m. The record w as v er y cl ear that T .L., the y oung estchil d, resi ded
w ith Riq uelm e at all time s, bot h in W ashin gton, an d du ring the six-w eek period sh e w as in T exas, and the tim e pe riod af ter the y lef t W ashin gt o n i n O c tob er. For part of the tim e in13

q uest ion , R iq uel me wa s living at t he W ashi ng ton h ouse w it h the ch il dr en, a lt houg h s he state s thatshe w as sep arate d f rom Can ales atthattime. The child supp ort w as originally
ordered at the hear ing to be temporar y , but w as lat er inc or porated int o the final de cree becau se Can ale s h ad notpai d i t. At the f ina l hear ing , couns el for Canal es arg ued that he
w as enti tl ed to a reduct ion for the ti me per iod that Ri q uel me and t he c hil dr en w er e l iv ing at the W ashin gton residen ce. At the hea ring, his coun sel sugg este d he w as owed child suppo rtfor t hr ee month s a nd, o n appea l, he s ug g est s fiv e months

. Ri q uel me tes ti fied that, dur ing the per iod w hen she retu rn ed to W ashi ng ton, Can ale s paid all of

the ho use b ills and she received mo ney from her mo the r so she could supp ort hersel f. R iq uel me tes ti fied th at du ri ng thi s t ime appel lan t w as prov idi ng for t he “ needs of the h ome.” There w as no sp e cif ic ev ide nce w it h respec t t o w ho s uppor ted t he c hil dr en dur ing thi s p er iod

. Ri q uel me tes ti fied th at s he had r ecei v ed no suppo rtand w as enti tl ed to
re troact iv e suppor

t in the amount of

$36,000. The amount aw arded w as in acc ordance w it h the a mounts di cta ted b y se cti on 154.009 of

the Tex as Fami ly

C ode. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 154 .00 9 (Verno n 20 08)

. W e w ill notrev erse the trial court in this discretiona ry matter bas ed on the record tha t i s b efore us

. W e ov er ru le is sue three. VII. C ONCL US I ON The prev iou s a batementordered by thi s C our

t is lifte d and the c ase is rein sta ted. Beca use W ashi ng ton s tate w as the h ome st ate o f the three chi ldren, the Tex as cour t doe s
n ot hav e jurisdiction to ma ke the initial custo dy det ermin ation

. T hus, w e do not h a ve jur is dic ti on ov er

the ini ti al cus tody

matte rs i n thi s c ase, and w e di smi ss thatpor ti on of the14

cas e for lac k o f subj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on. W e a f f irm the jud g ment w it h respec t t o the div is ion of communi ty

proper ty and the a w ard of r etroact iv e c hil d s uppor t.

R O S E V E L A J u s t i c e
Del iv er ed and filed the 18th day of Nov ember , 201 0.