Court Opinion

ID: 9662347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:06:37.908634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.840171
License: Public Domain

MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting (Assigned).
I respectfully dissent.
This case involves certain property held by Husband prior to the divorce, but not disclosed to the trial court or Wife prior to entry of the divorce decree. The appeal of the divorce decree pended in this Court for two years.
After the entry of the “Final Decree of Divorce,” Wife discovered that Husband had failed to disclose the following property that was in his name and under his control prior to the entry of the divorce decree:
1. At least three bank accounts in the Cayman Islands; and
2. Four condominium units in Quintana Roo, Mexico.
Wife sought, and obtained from the divorce court, a temporary injunction and an order appointing a receiver to preserve the three bank accounts and the condominiums pending a division of the property by the divorce court.
The majority opinion holds that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the temporary relief because the appeal of the divorce decree was still pending in our Court when the trial court entered its orders. I disagree. The divorce decree that was appealed did not dispose of the three Cayman Island bank accounts nor the four condos in Mexico, and therefore we did not have before us for review any issue dealing with that property. As explained below, the Texas Family Code specifically provides for the handling of a situation like this, and the Legislature has made it clear that the trial court has continuing jurisdiction over this matter.
DISCUSSION
The Family Code provision that grants the trial court continuing jurisdiction in this matter, section 9.203, provides as follows:
(a) If a court of this state failed to dispose of property subject to division in a final decree of divorce or annulment even though the court had jurisdiction over the spouses or over the property, the court shall divide the property in a manner that the court deems just and right, having due regard for the rights *320of each party and any children of the marriage.
Tex. Fam.Code ANN. § 9.203 (Vernon 1997). In discussing the predecessor statute to Section 9.203 (Section 3.91(a)), one treatise has explained the significance of the statute:
Prior to 1987, if the trial court failed to divide some part of the estate of the parties, the ex-spouses became tenants in common with a presumption that their interests in the property were equal. Since 1987, however, the enactment of Subchapter F of the Texas Family Code has modified the law regarding property not divided upon divorce and permits the court to make a “just and right” division of such property even in a postdivorce suit.
39 Aloysius A. Leopold, Texas PRACTICE: MaRital Property & Homesteads § 20.19 (1993).
1. Four Condominiums in Mexico
Not only is there no mention in the divorce decree of the four condominiums in Quintana Roo, Mexico, the divorce decree makes absolutely no mention of any real estate, or any interest in real estate. The majority opinion ignores this fact. The divorce decree specifically deals with the possibility that there may be assets not covered by the decree, stating: “IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that any assets of the parties not awarded or divided by this Final Decree of Divorce are subject to future division as provided in the Texas Family Code.” The Texas Family Code specifically provides that such undivided assets shall be divided by the divorce court “in a manner that the court deems just and right, having due regard for the rights of each party and any children of the marriage.” Tex. Fam.Code AnN. § 9.203 (Vernon 1997). The Texas Family Code also authorizes the divorce court to issue temporary orders to protect marital property until it can be divided. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §§ 6.501, 6.502 (Vernon Supp.2003).
There is no doubt in my mind that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the temporary orders in this case as to the four condominium units in Mexico.
2. Bank Accounts in the Cayman Islands
The “Final Decree of Divorce” provides for the disposition of “All funds in the name of JOHN F. BASS including funds on deposit, together with accrued but unpaid interest, in banks, savings institutions, or other financial institutions, which are subject to JOHN F. BASS’s sole control.” On its face, it appears the divorce decree covers the bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. However, it is uncontested that, at the time of the divorce decree, neither the trial court nor Wife was aware of the Cayman Islands bank accounts. According to the record, Husband had stated under oath that he had no funds, no stocks and no monies other than approximately $4000.00.
If it is clear from the record that the divorce court did not consider or contemplate certain marital property when it entered the divorce decree, then such marital property remains undivided. See Thompson v. Thompson, 500 S.W.2d 203, 206-09 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1973, no writ). In the present case, it is clear from the record that the trial court did not consider or contemplate the bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, and therefore the trial court’s decree failed to dispose of those bank accounts. Accordingly, the trial court has continuing jurisdiction, under section 9.203 of the Family Code, to divide those bank accounts, as well as the authority to issue temporary orders to protect the bank accounts until they can be divided, pursuant to sections 6.501 and 6.502 of the Family Code.
*321CONCLUSION
Because the divorce decree did not dispose of the bank accounts in the Cayman Islands nor the four condominiums in Mexico, the appeal of the divorce decree brought by Husband did not bring before us any issue dealing with such property. “The role of an appellate court is only to determine whether the trial comí abused its discretion in its disposition of the community property and an appellate court does not have the authority to render judgment dividing the marital property.” Robles v. Robles, 965 S.W.2d 605, 621 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied).
The trial court in the present case has had continuing jurisdiction over the property that was not disposed of in the final decree of divorce. Accordingly, we should overrule Husband’s first issue, and we should reach the merits of his remaining issues.