1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 4 8 - CV W AL T E RE DW I N S CH M I E DI NG, I I I AP P E L L ANT V . C A RA N I N A LAV EN D ER A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 158TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l antW al t erEdw i n S chm i edi ng I I I , a pr o se pr i soner , appeal s t he f i nal d e c re ee n te re d i n h i sd i v o r c e . In th re ei s s u e s , h ea rg u e sth a t th etri a l c o u rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on: ( 1) by notal l ow i ng hi m t o a ppe aratt he f i nalhe ar i ng by al t er nat e m ea ns ; ( 2) by f ai l i ng t o di vi de t he com m uni t y e st at e i n aj us tan d r i ght m ann e r ; a n d ( 3) b ym i s c h a r a c t e r i z i n g a b u s i n e s sa sAp p e l l e eCa r a ni na L a v e n d e r’ s s e p a ratep rop e rt y . La v e n d e r ha s n o t fil e d a b ri e f w i th this co u rt . Fort he r ea so nss etf ort h be l ow , w e w i l l r eve r sean d r em and .2

I n M ar ch 200 8, La ven derf i l ed a p et i t i on f ordi vor cef r om Schm i edi ng. C oncer ni ng t he di vi si on of com m uni t y pr opert y accum ul at ed dur i ng t he part i es’ t w ent y- si x- yea rm ar r i age , La ven der ’ s pet i t i on a l l ege d: Pet i t i onerbel i eves Pet i t i onerand R espond entw i l l ent eri nt o an a g r e e m e n tf o rt h ed iv is io n o f t h e ir e s t a t e . If s u c h a n a g r e e m e n tis m ade , Pet i t i one rr equ es t s t he C ourtt o appr ovet he agr ee m entan d d iv id eth e ir e s t a t e in a m a n n e r c o n s is te n t w ith th ea g re e m e n t. If su c h an ag ree m e n t i s n o t m a d e , P e ti ti o n e r r e q u e sts the C o u rtto d i v i d ethe i r es tate i n a m a n n e r t h a t t h eC o u rtd e e m s j u st a n d ri g h t, a sp r o v i d e d b yl a w. Sc hm i e di ng w a ss e rve d i n j a i l a nd f r om j a i l f i l e d a p r o s e“ Re pl y And M ot i on To O r i gi nalPet i t i on F orD [ i ] vor ce , ” con t es t i ng Lav end er ’ s pet i t i on a nd r equ es t i ng a t el econfer ence w i t h t he t r i al courtt o f urt herst at e hi s cl ai m s. Bef or e t he Jul y 31, 2008 di vo r ce “ pr ove - up, ” Schm i edi ng f i l ed t he f ol l ow i ng do cum ent s: “M ot i on ForB enc h W ar r antO rI n The A l t er nat i ve M ot i on ForSat el l i t e Tel l erC onf er enc e H ea r i ng, ” a se con d or i gi nalan sw er , a m ot i on f or ado pt i on ofa di sc ove ry cont r ol pl an, an “Appl i ca t i on ForW r i tO fH abe asCor pus A d Tes t i f i ca ndum A nd M ot i on To Conduc tA l l N on- C as e Di sp os i t i ve H ea r i ngs By V i deo O rTel eph oneConf er enc e, ” a r es pons e t o L ave nd er’ s r equ es tf or d is c lo s u re , a n d a n o th e r p le a d in g title d “ A m e n d e d S e c o n d O rig in a l A n s w e r.” In se ver aloft hes e f i l i ngs , Schm i edi ng s pec i f i ca l l y po i nt ed out t hathew oul d not a g ree to a d i v i sio n o f th ep a rt i e s’ p rop e rt yan d req u e ste d the o p p o rt u n i ty to pr es entt es t i m ony t o t he t r i alco urt , ei t herl i ve orby al t er nat e m ea ns . The3

rec ord d oe s no tco ntai n rul i ng s byt he t r i al co urton an y o fS ch m i e d i n g ’s m ot i ons. The t r i alco urthe ar d thedi vor ce“ pr ove - up”on J ul y 31, 2008 . The r eport er ’ s r ecor d oft he hear i ng i s f ew erthan thr ee p ages. Laven dert est i f i ed t hatshe an d S chm i edi ng m ar r i ed i n 1 98 0 an d separ at ed i n 2 00 2, t hat S chm i edi ng w as conf i ned i n t he peni t ent i ary and w oul d be t her e f or“ qui t e a w hi l e, ” t hatt heyha d s epa r at ed al l oft hei rpr ope rt y, t hats he had so l d t he f am i l y hou se w i t h a pow erofatt or ney f r om S chm i edi ng, t hatshe had di vi ded al l o fthei rd e bt s , a nd t ha ta l l s heh a d l e ftw e r es om ed e bt st ha ts heh ad i ncur r ed and t he pr opert y t hatshe had i n herh ands. T he t r i al courtconcl uded t he hear i ng byst at i ng t hathe t ook “j udi ci alnot i ce oft he content s oft he f i l e, w hi ch i ncl ude s a not i ce l ett er se tt i ng t hi s hea r i ng a nd a gr ee n c ar d s entt o a nd re c e i v e d b yth ere s p o n d e n t.” Th e t r i al courtt her eaft ersi gned a f i nal d e c ree ofdi vor ce r eci t i ng t hat Schm i edi ng ha d “ m adea gen er alap pea r anc e a nd w as dul y not i f i ed oft r i albut f ai l ed t o appearand def aul t ed. ” The f i nal decr ee aw ar ded Laven dera busi ness com m onl y know n as SoH o S al on; a 19 94 For d R anger ; al l f ur ni t ur e, f ur ni shi ngs, fi x tu res , g o o d s, ap p l i a n c e s, eq u i p m e n t, cloth i n g , j e w e l ry, an d p e rso n a l effe c ts in h e rp o s s e s s io n ; a ll s u m so fc a s h in h e rp o s s e s s io n o rs u bje c tt o h e rc o n t r o l; al l r et i r em entpl ansf r om he rem pl oym ent ; an d a l i f e i ns ur anc e p ol i cy i ns ur i ng4

herl i f e. The f i nal decr ee aw ar ded S chm i edi ng al l f ur ni t ur e, f ur ni shi ngs, f i xt ur es, g o o d s , a p p lia n c e s , e q u ip m e n t , c lo t h in g , je w e lry , a n d p e r s o n a l e f f e c t sin h is p o s s e s s io n ; a ll s u m so fc a s h in h isp o s s e s s io n o rs u bje c tt o h i s c o n t r o l; a ll r et i r em entpl ansf r om hi s em pl oym ent ; and any l i f e i ns ur anc e p ol i ci esi ns ur i ng hi s l i f e. A lt h o u g h a n in m a t ed o e sn o th a v ea n a u t o m a t ic r ig h tt o a p p e a rp e r s o n a lly i n c ourt , heors he doe s notaut om at i ca l l y l os e t he r i ghtt o acc es s t he cou rt s by
v i rtu eo f b e i n g i n c a rc e ra te d . I n reR. C. R. , 230 S . W . 3d 423, 4 2 6 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.); I n re D. D . J. , 136 S. W . 3d 305 , 311 ( T ex. A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t. ). I f a c o u rtd e term i n e s th a t a p ro s ei n m a te i n aci vi l ac t i on i s noten t i t l ed t o l ea ve pr i so n t o appea rpe r so nal l y i n c ourt , t he i nm at e s houl d beal l ow ed t o pr oce ed by a f f i dav i t , de pos i t i on, t el ep ho ne, or o th e r m e a n s . R. C. R. , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d at 4 2 6 . H e re, t h etr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r et i on byf ai l i ng t o c ons i derSchm i edi ng’ s r equ es t s t o pa rt i ci pat e i n s om e fa s h io n in h i sd i v o rc ep ro c e e d i n g s . See R. C. R. , 230 S. W . 3d a t426– 27; D . D . J. , 1 3 6 S .W .3 d at 3 1 4 . W esu sta i n S c h m i e d i n g ’s fi rst po i n t. W ea l s o s u s ta i n S c h m i e d i n g ’ss e c o n d a n d t h ir d p o i n ts . T h ere c o rd refl ect s t hatt he t r i al courtpr oceeded as i ft he part i es had r eached an agr ee m entast o t he di vi si on oft hei rco m m uni t y pr ope rt y a nd a s t o t he cl assi f i cat i on of separ at e pr opert y. Because S chm i ed i n g expr essl y contes t ed5

t hesei s s ue si n w r i tt e n do c um e nt sf i l e d w i t h t het r i a l c ou rt , b e c a us en o s uch a g r e e m e n ts ig n e d b yS c h m ie d in g e x is t sin t h er e c o r d , b e c a u s eS c h m ie d in g d id notpa rt i ci pa t e by a ny m ea nsi n t he di vor cepr oce edi ng, an d be ca us e n o e v i d e n c eex i sts i n the thre e -pa g erep o rt e r’ s re c o rd o r i n the c l e rk’s rec o rd a s to t he com m uni t y or se par at e pr ope rt y ow ned by t he part i es or ast o t he val ue of su c h p rop e rt y , w eag ree th a t th e tr i a l c o u rt a b u se d i ts d i sc reti o n i n i ts p rop e rt y d i v i s i o n a n d i n c h a ra c te ri z i n g a b u s i n e s sa sL a v e n d e r’ss e p a ra te p ro p e rty . See Bal l v. Ro ney , N o. 02
- 0 8
- 002 13- C V , 2008 W L 483141 2, at*3–4 ( Tex. A pp.— FortW ort h Nov. 6, 2008 , no p et . ) ( m em . op. ) ( ci t i ng Sandone v. Mi l ler- Sandon e , 1 1 6 S .W .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.); O ’ Neal v. O ’Nea l, 6 9 S .W .3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 0 (T e x . A p p .— E a s tl a n d 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.)). H a v i n g s u s ta i n e d S c h m i e d i n g ’sth re e p o i n ts , w ere v e rs eth etri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t an d rem a n d this ca se to th etr i a l co u rt .
SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: G A RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a y 21, 2009