Court Opinion

ID: 9385186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 08:25:06.109207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:00.489536
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-22-00233-CV

                      IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
                  DE JORAN R. WRIGHT AND TOMECIA L. WRIGHT
                     AND IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.W., A CHILD

                           On Appeal from the 69th District Court
                                    Dallam County, Texas
                 Trial Court No. 12080, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding

                                      March 31, 2023
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Appellant, Tomecia L. Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s

Final Decree of Divorce dissolving her marriage to Appellee, De Joran R. Wright. By nine

issues, she contends (1) the trial court precluded her from presenting evidence that De

Joran had abused their child, (2) her constitutional rights were violated when the trial court

ordered a mental examination and social study, (3) conservatorship and custody should

have been awarded to her, (4) child support and other financial obligations were not

properly calculated, (5) she should have been awarded half of De Joran’s retirement
benefits, (6) venue was proper in Palestine, Texas, (7) she was denied the right to submit

a proposed final decree, (8) De Joran should have been precluded from offering any

evidence, and (9) there was administrative misconduct in preparation of the clerk’s record.

We affirm.

                                            BACKGROUND

        The parties married in December 2012 and have one daughter. They resided in

Dalhart where De Joran was a coach and teacher for the school district. They separated

four years later.1 Tomecia, who was unemployed at the time, left Dalhart and took the

child to Houston, ostensibly for a vacation. When De Joran contacted her about helping

her find employment, she refused to return to Dalhart, and he initiated divorce

proceedings. She avoided service for several months and prevented De Joran from

visiting his daughter for approximately six months.2 She eventually filed a counterpetition

for divorce. Shortly thereafter, the trial court held a hearing and issued temporary orders

and a writ of attachment for the child to be returned to De Joran.3

        Tomecia eventually settled in Humble, Texas, and De Joran subsequently moved

to Palestine, approximately a two-hour drive from Humble, to assist a family member

experiencing medical issues.           He continued his teaching and coaching career in

         1 The divorce proceeding continued for five years due to Tomecia’s inability to effectively

communicate with three different attorneys who were all permitted to withdraw. Thereafter, she represented
herself.
        2 Tomecia claimed that she left because De Joran was abusing their child although neither the
police nor Child Protective Services (CPS) were ever contacted while the parties were married. During the
divorce proceedings, CPS investigated her allegations and ruled out any abuse.

         3 Tomecia’s request to appear at the temporary hearing by teleconference was denied and she did

not participate.
                                                    2
Palestine, which at the time of the final hearing, spanned eighteen years. He also

supplemented his income with odd jobs.

        Almost five years after the temporary hearing, a final hearing on the divorce was

held.   De Joran was represented by counsel.               Tomecia appeared pro se.4           At the

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the parties a divorce and appointed them

joint managing conservators with De Joran having the exclusive right to designate the

child’s primary residence. The trial court ordered Tomecia to pay child support and

medical support. The marital estate was awarded to the party in possession and De Joran

was awarded his full retirement benefits. Evidence presented at the hearing will be

discussed as necessary to disposition of Tomecia’s issues.

        Although Tomecia complains that the trial court did not enter findings of fact and

conclusions of law, she did not request any. When a party fails to properly request

findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court is presumed to have made all

findings of fact necessary to support its judgment, and it must be affirmed on any legal

theory that is supported by the evidence. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.

1990); Garcia v. Garcia, 170 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.). When

a reporter’s record is filed, however, the implied findings are not conclusive and may be

challenged for legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. BMC Software Belg., N.V. v.

Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex. 2002).

       4 We note that a pro se litigant is not exempt from rules of procedure. Burbage v. Burbage, 447

S.W.3d 249, 258 (Tex. 2014). Otherwise, a pro se litigant would have an unfair advantage over litigants
who are represented by counsel. Mansfield v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).
                                                  3
                                         STANDARD OF REVIEW

       In a family law case, the abuse of discretion standard overlaps with the traditional

sufficiency standards of review. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539, 549 (Tex.

2018). To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we consider whether

the court (1) had sufficient evidence on which to exercise that discretion or (2) erred in

the application of that discretion. See id. See also Gonzales v. Pounds, No. 07-21-

00088-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 873, at *8–9 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 4, 2022, no

pet.) (mem. op.).

ISSUE ONE—EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE

       Tomecia asserts the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence she

sought to have admitted. She does not, however, specify in her brief what items of

evidence were excluded. As her argument, she simply asserts “[t]here were no hearsay

problems.” Generally, such a vague argument results in procedural default. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1(i).

       At trial, she complained the trial court did not admit a thumb drive detailing alleged

abuse by De Joran, a letter from her son regarding the alleged abuse, a letter from a

neurologist regarding speech therapy for the child, statements from a speech therapist,

and some photographs of her with her daughter containing captions.5 De Joran objected

noting that Tomecia had failed to comply with discovery requests which had been due in

February 2018. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.6(a) (providing for exclusion of evidence that was

not provided in a discovery response in a timely manner). He also lodged hearsay

       5   The trial court did admit some photographs which did not include any notations or captions.
                                                     4
objections to admission of the items. The trial court explained to Tomecia that the items

she sought to have admitted constituted hearsay without witnesses present to

authenticate them.

       We review a trial court’s decision to permit or exclude the admission of evidence

for abuse of discretion. In re A.W.B., 419 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010,

no pet.). We must uphold the trial court’s decision so long as it falls within the zone of

reasonable disagreement. Id.

       Tomecia’s assertion that “[t]here were no hearsay problems” is without merit. We

find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the items she complained of

during the hearing. Issue one is overruled.

ISSUE TWO—ORDER FOR            MENTAL EXAMINATION         AND   SOCIAL STUDY VIOLATED
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

       In support of her claim that the trial court’s order for a mental evaluation and social

study violated her constitutional rights, Tomecia relies on State for Interest and Protection

of Ellenwood, 567 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ), and Thompson v.

State, 621 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Ellenwood involved issues related to a

civil commitment and Thompson was a capital murder case in which a psychiatrist

testified during the punishment phase about the defendant’s propensity to commit future

criminal acts. Neither case is relevant to Tomecia’s complaint and results in failure to

present legal authority for her position. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Additionally, her trial

testimony was that she did not comply with an order for a mental evaluation because she

could not afford one. She did not, however, complain during trial that the trial court’s

                                              5
order violated her constitutional rights. Because her complaint on appeal does not

comport with her trial testimony, her issue is waived. See Moser v. Davis, 79 S.W.3d

162, 169 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, no pet.) (holding that an issue is waived when the

complaint on appeal does not comport with the objection made at trial). Issue two is

overruled.

ISSUE THREE—CONSERVATORSHIP AND CUSTODY

        Tomecia maintains she should have been granted sole conservatorship because

there was “substantial proof that [De Joran] is a child abuser.” She reinforces her

contention by alluding to “documentary evidence, including an arrest and statements from

[her] son . . . .” She further maintains the trial court failed to consider the relevant factors

set forth in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976).6

        A court’s primary consideration in determining conservatorship issues must always

be the best interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.002.7 In the context of

custody, other factors to consider in addition to the Holley factors include the child’s need

for stability and the need to prevent constant litigation in child custody cases. In re V.L.K.,

24 S.W.3d 338, 343 (Tex. 2000).

         6 The Holley factors, which are not exhaustive, include (1) the desires of the child; (2) the emotional

and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emotional and physical danger to the child
now and in the future; (4) the parental abilities of the individual seeking custody; (5) the programs available
to assist the individual to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by the individual
or by the agency seeking custody; (7) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or
omissions of the parent that may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and
(9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Id.

        7   All future references to “§” or “section” are to the Texas Family Code unless otherwise designated.
                                                       6
       Although Tomecia claims there was evidence that De Joran should not have been

appointed managing conservator, the record shows her evidence was either excluded or

not credible. Her allegations that he abused their child were ruled out by CPS. She

testified that while they resided together, she never called the police to report any

instances of abuse or violence by De Joran.

       The trial court heard testimony that De Joran had stable employment and provided

the child with a clean and stable home. While the parties resided together, De Joran

cooked for the family, maintained the home, and was the child’s primary caretaker. He

testified the child thrived under his supervision. He offered an exhibit containing various

awards, which were admitted into evidence, showing the child’s proficiency in academics,

math, and physical education. He also testified the child was participating in speech

therapy through the school district.

       Based on the evidence presented by De Joran and Tomecia’s unsubstantiated

allegations, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in appointing De Joran as

managing conservator with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence.

Issue three is overruled.

ISSUE FOUR—CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT

       Tomecia asserts the trial court’s order of child support was improperly calculated.

We disagree. The Texas Legislature has adopted child support guidelines intended to

guide the trial court in determining an equitable amount of child support. § 154.121. The

amount of periodic child support established by the guidelines in effect at the time of the

                                            7
hearing is presumed to be reasonable, and an order of support conforming to the

guidelines is presumed to be in the best interest of the child. § 154.122.

       In the underlying case, Tomecia confirmed she was working forty hours per week

and making twelve dollars an hour. While testifying, Tomecia was asked whether she

had “any problem paying statutory child support based upon your $12 an hour” to which

she answered, “Oh, no, sir. No sir.” The testimony presented supports the trial court’s

child support award, which was within the statutory guidelines.

       Tomecia complains that the trial court should have entered findings of fact and

conclusions of law in support of its ruling. However, as previously noted, she did not

request any and the trial court’s implied findings are supported by the reporter’s record.

Issue four is overruled.

ISSUE FIVE—DIVISION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS

       Tomecia maintains she should have been awarded a portion of De Joran’s

retirement benefits. We disagree.

       In a divorce decree, the trial court must order a division of the community estate

“in a manner the court deems just and right, having due regard for the rights of each party

. . . .” § 7.001. The property division includes retirement benefits. § 7.003. According to

this standard, the trial court does not have to divide the community estate equally so long

as the division is equitable. O’Carolan v. Hopper, 414 S.W.3d 288, 311 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2013, no pet.). Due to this equitable standard, a trial court has wide discretion

when it comes to the division of a community estate, and we review the exercise of that

discretion for abuse. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981). Furthermore,
                                           8
given variances in property valuations and debt allocation, there is no requirement that

the court effectuate a division of the community estate with mathematic certainty. Id. at

699.

        In awarding De Joran the full amount of his retirement benefits, the trial court

considered that he had spent five years and $15,000 in attorney’s fees prosecuting the

divorce action. Tomecia prolonged the time in which to finalize the divorce by initially

avoiding service and taking the child to Houston. She also delayed the proceeding by

having three attorneys represent her, although she ultimately represented herself. De

Joran’s retirement benefits had accrued via his eighteen-year employment with two

different school districts and the marriage lasted only four years. We cannot say the trial

court abused its discretion in awarding De Joran all his retirement benefits. Issue five is

overruled.

ISSUE SIX—VENUE

        Relying on section 103.001 of the Family Code,8 Tomecia contends the underlying

suit should have been heard in Palestine, Texas. We disagree.

        The Texas Family Code provides that a suit for divorce may not be maintained in

this State unless at the time the suit is filed either the petitioner or the respondent has

been (1) a domiciliary of this state for the preceding six months and (2) a resident of the

county in which the suit is filed for the preceding ninety days. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 6.301.

          8 Section 103.001 sets venue in an original proceeding where a child resides unless venue is fixed

in a suit for dissolution of marriage such as here. § 103.001(a)(2).
                                                     9
       At the time De Joran filed the original petition for divorce, he was a resident of

Dallam County for the required statutory time periods. There is nothing in the record to

show that the case was transferred while it was pending for five years. Thus, although

De Joran moved to Palestine, Texas, and Tomecia moved to Humble, Texas, venue

remained proper in Dallam County. Issue six is overruled.

ISSUE SEVEN—DENIAL OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED FINAL DECREE

       Tomecia complains that De Joran’s attorney provided her with a copy of the final

decree and that such action violated her statutory and constitutional rights because as a

pro se litigant, she was not permitted to submit a proposed final decree. We disagree.

       Rule 305 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that “[a]ny

party may prepare and submit a proposed judgment to the court for signature.” TEX. R.

CIV. P. 305. First, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys

and are not exempt from rules of procedure. Pena v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d 665, 667

(Tex. 2006). The record does not show that Tomecia submitted a proposed judgment.

Second, Tomecia does not reference any legal authority, as required by Rule 38.1(i) of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, to support her assertion that her statutory and

constitutional rights were violated. Failure to cite authority results in procedural default of

her issue. Sunnyside Feedyard, L.C. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 106 S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo March 11, 2003, no pet.). Issue seven is overruled.

ISSUE EIGHT—DE JORAN’S ALLEGED DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS

       Tomecia asserts that De Joran should not have been allowed to offer any evidence

due to discovery violations. We disagree.
                                              10
       Generally, Rule 193.6(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the

exclusion of evidence when a party fails to make, amend, or supplement a discovery

response related to that evidence. TEX. R. CIV. P. 193.6(a). During the hearing on

temporary orders, De Joran offered into evidence Exhibits One through Seven and then

during trial, he offered Exhibits Eight through Eleven and asked the trial court to take

judicial notice of Exhibits One through Seven. The trial court took judicial notice of the

exhibits and Tomecia did not object to admission of any of them. She cannot now, for the

first time on appeal, complain of the admission of those exhibits without first having

presented her complaint in the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Issue eight is

overruled.

ISSUE NINE—ADMINISTRATIVE MISCONDUCT RESULTED IN INCOMPLETE RECORD

       Tomecia contends she “subpoenaed” the complete record but that due to

administrative misconduct, subpoenas which were included with a “Motion and Order

Appointing Ad Litem for M.W.” were not included. She further contends that an order for

a motion for continuance was omitted. Her “argument” is that the omitted records “paint

a different picture” and that is why they were omitted.

       De Joran’s response to this issue is a lack of understanding of Tomecia’s

complaint. He notes that she did not seek to supplement the clerk’s record and that her

allegation of “administrative misconduct” is a serious and unsubstantiated claim.

       Tomecia’s final issue is without merit. We find her complaint inadequately briefed

and without citation to any authority to support her allegation of “administrative

misconduct.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). As such, issue nine is overruled.

                                            11
OTHER FILINGS PENDING

       Over the course of this appeal, Tomecia filed numerous documents. Her challenge

to the accuracy of the reporter’s record was resolved against her after the appeal was

abated and the cause was remanded to the trial court.9 The result was an order from the

trial court that there were no inaccuracies in the reporter’s record. After briefs were filed,

Tomecia filed various documents regarding her notice of appeal and for extensions to

present written argument. We deny any requests pending in this Court.

                                            CONCLUSION

       The Final Decree of Divorce is affirmed.

                                                                Alex L. Yarbrough
                                                                     Justice

        9 See In the Matter of the Marriage of De Joran Wright and Tomecia L. Wright and In the Interest

of M.J.W., a Child, No. 07-22-00233-CV, 2023 Tex. App LEXIS 347, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 19,
2023, order).
                                                  12