Court Opinion

ID: 9362897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 10:16:15.005592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.508908
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-22-00335-CV

                             IN RE FALLON BROWN

                                Original Proceeding

                             From the 378th District Court
                                 Ellis County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. 108128D

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Fallon Brown has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

requiring the trial court to withdraw portions of a temporary order entered in a divorce

proceeding. Fallon complains that the trial court erred by ruling that a marital agreement

was void and by ordering that the residence of the parties acquired during the marriage

was to be sold. Fallon filed for a divorce from Anthony Brown and filed a motion for

temporary orders in which she sought temporary spousal support, exclusive use of the

marital residence and her vehicle, and for other injunctive relief. Anthony also sought

temporary orders and asked the trial court for possession of the marital home, for Fallon
to begin to pay her own living expenses, and for both parties to be limited to using credit

cards solely in their own names, and other injunctive relief.

       After a hearing, the trial court signed an order that awarded Fallon temporary

support for a short duration, ordered her to vacate the residence by a certain date,

awarded Anthony exclusive possession of the residence after that date, and ordered that

each party was to solely use credit cards in their own name. The trial court also found

that the marital agreement signed by the parties was void and ordered that Anthony list

the marital residence for sale. It is the latter two rulings that Fallon argues constituted an

abuse of discretion meriting mandamus relief. Because we find that the trial court's

finding that the agreement of the parties was void in its entirety as a partition and

exchange agreement was not erroneous, but that the trial court did abuse its discretion

by ordering that the marital residence be sold without pleadings and after informing the

parties that the sale of the residence would not be considered at that stage, we

conditionally grant the petition in part, deny the petition in part, and order that the trial

court set aside the part of its order as to the sale of the residence.

       Fallon and Anthony were married in March of 2021, and in March of 2022, they

entered into an agreement entitled "Martial [sic] Contract" that Fallon prepared without

the assistance of counsel. In that agreement, the parties agreed that Fallon's vehicle was

a gift to her that she would retain in the event of their divorce. The agreement contained

provisions for counseling prior to divorce and for Anthony to pay off Fallon's student

In re Brown                                                                             Page 2
loans, as well as other obligations in the event of a divorce. The parties also agreed that

if the marriage ended "due to proven infidelity (either sexual or emotional)," the

"accused" will "forfeit" his or her interest in any community property. Both parties signed

the agreement.

       The trial court admitted the agreement into evidence during the temporary orders

hearing but stated at one point that the validity of the agreement was not before it at that

point and should be considered at the final hearing. Each party's counsel asked both

parties some questions about the agreement after the trial court's statement regarding

consideration of the validity of the agreement, however. Fallon and Anthony testified

regarding his extramarital relations. Fallon testified that no financial disclosures were

made with the agreement. In their closing arguments, each party argued for the trial

court to rule on the validity of the agreement. The trial court later ruled that the

agreement was void.

       A marital property agreement pursuant to Family Code Section 4.102 permits

spouses to partition or exchange between themselves all or part of their community

property into separate property. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 4.102; see also id. at § 4.104

(requiring partition agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties).          To be

enforceable as a partition agreement, the agreement must make a specific reference to

partition or contain language that a partition division was intended. See Maples v. Nimitz,

615 S.W.2d 690, 695 (Tex. 1981); Byrnes v. Byrnes, 19 S.W.3d 556, 559 (Tex. App.—Fort

In re Brown                                                                           Page 3
Worth 2000, no pet.); McBride v. McBride, 797 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 1990, writ denied). There are no other permissible agreements other than income

from whatever property is separate in a marital property agreement. See TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. Subch. B.

       In her petition seeking mandamus relief, Fallon argues that the paragraph in the

agreement that states that her vehicle is separate property because it was a gift to her

indicates that the entire agreement was a valid partition and exchange agreement.

However, rather than an agreement to partition property, that paragraph appears to be

an agreement simply to characterize that property as separate property, which is not the

type of agreement contemplated by section 4.102. See Mora v. Mora, No. 04-10-00832-CV,

2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3831 at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 16, 2012, no pet.). The

agreement contains many other provisions that are not related to the partition and

exchange of the community estate and are likewise not enforceable as a partition and

exchange agreement, including but not limited to the requirement of counseling prior to

divorce and the payment of expenses of Fallon in the event of a divorce.

       As to the provision relating to the "forfeiture" of Anthony's community interest in

the property "in the event the marriage end[s] due to proven infidelity (either sexual or

emotional), as Fallon acknowledges by citing to authority in her petition filed with this

Court, it has been held that the term "partition" as used in Section 4.102 "contemplates a

division of property among the parties, not a complete forfeiture or assignment." See

In re Brown                                                                         Page 4
Byrnes v. Byrnes, 19 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (citing McBride v.

McBride, 797 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). Even

if this were not the case, however, there was evidence, although disputed by Fallon, that

Anthony's extramarital relations took place after the parties agreed to divorce. It would

not have constituted an abuse of discretion for the trial court to find that the marriage did

not end due to the alleged infidelity.

          We find that the trial court did not err by making an interlocutory ruling that the

agreement was not a valid partition and exchange agreement.1 We overrule Fallon's first

mandamus issue.

          In her second issue seeking mandamus, Fallon argues that the trial court abused

its discretion in its temporary order by requiring that the marital residence be sold

because there were no pleadings on file to support that order and because of her

contention that the marital residence was, in fact, her separate property due to the marital

property agreement. Although we have determined that the trial court did not err by not

declaring that the marital residence was Fallon's separate property pursuant to the

agreement, we find that the order to sell the marital residence was improper in the

temporary order. When Anthony testified that he would like for the residence to be sold,

Fallon objected to that request on the basis that there were no pleadings on file to support

the request. The trial court then stated: "The counter-petition doesn't ask for the sale of

1   We make no determination as to whether the agreement could be enforced on any other basis.

In re Brown                                                                                      Page 5
the residence. So please proceed without that." No further testimony or argument was

given as to the sale of the residence.

       It is arguable that Fallon has an adequate remedy by appeal. Mandamus relief is

available only if the relator establishes that the trial court abused its discretion and no

adequate appellate remedy exists. In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 613 (Tex. 2011) (orig.

proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Determining whether a party has an adequate remedy by appeal requires a balancing of

the benefits and detriments of mandamus review. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). However, temporary orders entered in

divorce actions may not be immediately appealed. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 6.507. Because

of this, leaving the order to sell the residence, that was not properly requested and that

the trial court said it would not consider, in place until a final judgment is entered and

appealed could result in irreparable harm, since Fallon is requesting that the marital

residence be awarded to her in the final judgment. We find that the trial court abused its

discretion when it ordered that the marital residence be sold at this juncture of the

proceeding without proper pleadings or notice to the parties that the trial court was

considering such an order.

       Having concluded that Fallon has no adequate appellate remedy and that the trial

court abused its discretion by ordering that the marital residence be sold at this juncture,

we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and order the trial court to

In re Brown                                                                           Page 6
vacate that portion of the temporary orders signed by the trial court on September 27,

2022. The writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court does not comply. The

petition is otherwise denied, and the stay of the temporary order rendered by this Court

on October 18, 2022 is hereby lifted.

                                               TOM GRAY
                                               Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Petition granted in part and denied in part
Opinion delivered and filed January 11, 2023
[OT06]

In re Brown                                                                       Page 7