1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 7 - 3 7 1 - CV
NAH I DA R E Z A AP P E L L ANT V . M O H A M M ED M O RTA ZA REZA A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 271STDI STRI CT CO URT O F W I SE CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A f t ert he exe cut i on ofa m edi at ed se t t l em entag r e em ent( M SA ) an d a hear i ng on a m ot i on t o setasi de th e M S A , th e t r i al courtsi gned a di vor ce dec r ee an d l at er den i ed A ppe l l ant N ahi da Rez a’ s m ot i on f or new t r i al . I n f our i ssues, A ppel l antcom pl ai ns about t he pr oper t y di vi si on. Becau se w e hol d t hat t he t r i al co urt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on i n di vi di ng t he m ar i t al es t at e, w e r eve r set he2 ... S ee Sief kas v. Sief

kas , 902 S. W . 2d 72, 79 ( Te x. App . — El Pa s o 1995, n o w r i t ) ( “[ U ] nl ess t he co r po r ati on i s a sp ou se's al t er eg o, a co urt m a y o n ly a w a rd a s p o u s e 's i n te re s t i n th e c o rp o ra ti o n , n o t s p e c i fi c c o rp o ra te p ro p e rty .” ); Th om as v. Th om as , 7 3 8 S .W .2 d 3 4 2 , 3 4 3 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 8 7 , w ri t d e n i e d ) (sa m e ); se e a l so T e x . R e v . C i v . S tat. A n n . a rt . 1 5 2 8 n , a rt . 4. 04 ( V er non 20 03 ) ( “A m em ber shi p i nt er est i s per sonal pr oper t y. A m em ber h a s n o i n te re s t i n s p e c i fi c l i m i te d l i a b i l i tyc o m p a n yp ro p e rty .” ). 2 t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent i n part and r em and t hi s case t o t he t r i al courtf ora new d i v i s i o n o f th e m a ri ta l e s ta te . I n t hei rM S A , t he part i es agr eed, am ong ot herthi ngs, t hatA ppel l ee M oha m m ed M ort az a Rez a w oul d ge tSuns etG as an d Gr i l l an d th a t A ppe l l ant
w oul d getBo w ie F in a M art . The agreem entdi d not speci f i cal l y st at e t hat

“ S u n s e t G a s a n d G r ill” in c lu d e d t h e v a lu e o ft h e a s s o c ia t e d re a l e s t a t e , n o rd id i tspeci f y t hat each st or e’ s i nventor y and val ue as a goi ng concer n w as i ncl uded i n i t s r e s pe c t i ve va l ue . A ha nd w r i t t e n no t e a pp e nd e d t o Ex hi bi tA oft he M SA p rov i d e d , “R e stru c tu re th e co rpo rate en ti ty c o n sisten t w i th the p rop e rt y s e ttlem e n t a g re e m e n t.” Th e spar se r ecor d and br i ef s bef or e us show t hat at t he t i m e t he part i es exe cut ed t he M SA , D & R I nve st m ent s, I nc. , i den t i f i ed var i ous l y a s a c or por at i on a n d a l i m i ted l i a b i l i ty c o m p a n y( L L C ) o w n e d b yt h e p a r t ie s, o w n e d the tw o b u s in e s s e s a s w e ll a s t h e re a l e s t a t e a s s o c ia t e d w it h S u n s e tG a s a n d G r ill. 2 The r ec or d a l so s how s t hatD & R had f i l ed as su m ed nam e c ert i f i ca t es i n t he3 ... S e eMap c o, I n c . v. Ca rter, 817 S . W . 2d 686, 688 ( Tex. 1991 ) ( hol di ng t her e w as no suppo rt f or j udg m ent based on al t er ego w hen i tw as nei t herpl ed n o r tri e d ); T

o wnHa l

l E s ta tesW

h itn e y, I

n c . v. W

i n ters , 220 S . W . 3d 71, 86 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (sa m e ).

4 ... S ee T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 6 .6 0 2 (c ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); I n re Mar

r i age of Joyner, 1 9 6 S .W .3 d 8 8 3 , 8 9 0 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ); Ga rcia -Uda ll v. Uda ll, 1 4 1 S .W .3 d 3 2 3 , 3 3 2 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.) ( both hol di ng t hata t r i al courthas no aut hor i t y t o ent era j udg m entt hatvar i es fro m th e te rm s o f a M S A ).

5 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 1. 3 nam es ofSu nsetG as and G r i l l and B ow i e Fi na M a rt . N ei t herpart y pl ed al t er e g o , n o rw a s itt r ie d b yc o n s e n tb e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o t r ia l. 3 D & R w as not di vi ded or eve n m ent i one d i n t he M SA . Nevert hel es s, i n t he di vor ce decr ee, t he t r i al courtaw ar ded all in t er esti n D & R t o A ppel l ee. A ppe l l antco m pl ai ned of t hi s aw ar d i n he rm ot i on f orne w t r i al , pr es ervi ng t he i s s u e . B e c a u s e th e M S A d i d n o t d i v i d e D & R , w e h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt abused i t s di scr et i on by aw ar di ng al l i nt er est i n D & R t o A ppel l ee. 4W e th e re fo re sust ai n A ppel l ant ’ s f i r sti ssue. W e do not r each herr em ai ni ng i ssues. 5 W e a f f i r m t he t r i al co urt ’ s j ud g m enti n pa rtan d r eve r sei ti n pa rt . The part i es ha ve notch al l eng ed t he val i di t y oft hei rdi vor ce d s t at us ort he pr ovi si ons re g a rd i n g th e c h i l d re n . W e t h e re fo re a ffir m th a t p a rt o f th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t g r ant i ng t he di vor ce an d a l l pr ovi si ons r el at ed t o t he chi l dr en. But b e c a u s e t h e t r ia l c o u rtw e n tb e y o n d t h e t e r m s o ft h e M S A b ya w a r d in g a ll4

i nt er es ti n D& R t o A ppe l l ee , w e r eve r se t hat partoft he t r i al co urt ’ s j udgm ent di vi di ng t he m ar i t al es t at e, an d w e r em and t hi s ca se so l el y f ora new di vi si on oft he m ar i t al est at e.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r2, 2008