A party affected by a decree of divorce or annulment providing for the division of marital property, including a division of property and any contractual provisions under the terms of an agreement incident to divorce or annulment that was approved by the court, may file a suit requesting enforcement in the court that rendered the decree. A trial court retains authority to enforce its judgment after its plenary power expires. Bhardwaj v. Pathak, No. 05-14-01030-CV, 2015 WL 4882522 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 17, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). If the enforcement proceeding is a claim for breach of contract, the suit may be filed in any district court. Chavez v. McNeely, 287 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.).
Affected parties include third-party creditor beneficiaries. Stine v. Stewart, 80 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam). The suit to enforce is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to original lawsuits. A party whose rights, duties, powers, or liabilities may be affected by the suit is entitled to receive notice by citation. The deadline and rules for answering apply as in other civil cases. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.001; Ackerly v. Ackerly, 13 S.W.3d 454, 456 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2000, no pet.).
Neither the discovery rule, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, nor a breach of fiduciary duty claim can avoid a statute of limitations defense when the plaintiff, after notification of the injury, fails to file a claim within the statutory period. Treuil v. Treuil, 311 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.).
Tangible Property: A suit to enforce the division of tangible property in existence at the time the decree is signed must be filed before the second anniversary of the date the decree is signed or becomes final after appeal, whichever is later. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.003(a). See Chakrabarty v. Ganguly, 573 S.W.3d 413, 417 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) (money and stocks are not tangible personal property, so two-year statute of limitations does not apply).
Contempt: The two-year limitations period of section 9.003(a) governing suits to enforce the division of tangible property may not apply to contempt actions. See Burton v. Burton, 734 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Tex. App.—Waco 1987, no writ) (“The two-year limitation in section 3.70(c) [now section 9.003] does not expressly apply to motions for contempt under section 3.76 [now section 9.012], and this court will not add that limitation.”). But see Dechon v. Dechon, 909 S.W.2d 950, 961 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ) (determining that section 3.70(c) [now section 9.003] “makes little sense unless it applies to all methods of enforcement,” including contempt).
Rights to Property in Future: A suit to enforce the division of future property not in existence at the time the decree is signed must be filed before the second anniversary of the date the right to the property matures or accrues or the decree becomes final, whichever is later. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.003(b). Installment payments have been deemed future property not in existence at the time of divorce. Therefore, the statute of limitations runs from the date any installment payment becomes due. Kent v. Holmes, 139 S.W.3d 120, 131 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004), rev’d on other grounds, Holmes v. Kent, 221 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. 2007). A suit to enforce a mediated settlement agreement is a breach-of-contract claim and is subject to a four-year statute of limitations, even if it involves a claim for future retirement benefits. Helm v. Hauser, No. 04-17-00232-CV, 2018 WL 2943823 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 23, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 896 (2020).
Judgments: A decree of divorce and agreement incident to divorce may be governed by the ten-year statute applicable to the enforcement and revival of judgments. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 31.006, 34.001; Romero v. Gonzalez, No. 03-19-00865-CV, 2021 WL 5225430 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 10, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (petition to enforce transfer of marital home filed seven years after decree timely); In re Marriage of Ward, 806 S.W.2d 276, 277 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, writ denied) (only those payments due and unpaid more than ten years before filing of motion to reduce claims to judgment are barred by limitations; case decided under prior version of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 31.006); see also Abrams v. Salinas, 467 S.W.3d 606, 611 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.).
The first numbered paragraph of the petition must include an allegation of the intended discovery level. Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.1.
§ 31.4Clear and Specific Language
The order to be enforced must spell out the details of compliance in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms so that the person subject to the order will readily know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed on him. Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding). Each obligation for which enforcement by contempt is requested must be set forth in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms. The order must clearly specify the act to be performed, together with the time and place of performance. The fact that a respondent has defeated the intent of an order is not sufficient to support contempt. The relator must have violated a command to do or not do a specific act.
If the terms of the original order are not clear or specific enough to be enforceable by contempt, the court may render a clarifying order specific enough to be enforced by contempt. See section 31.21 below.
The order to be enforced must be written and signed. Ex parte Wilkins, 665 S.W.2d 760, 760–61 (Tex. 1984) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Padron, 565 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding).
§ 31.6No Change of Division of Property
A court may not amend, modify, alter, or change the division of property made or approved in the decree of divorce or annulment. An order to enforce the division is limited to an order in aid or clarification of the prior order and may not alter or change the substantive division. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007(a); Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 140–42 (Tex. 2018); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003). The court may specify more precisely the manner of effecting the property division previously made or approved if the substantive division is not altered or changed. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.006(b). An enforcement order that amends, modifies, alters, or changes the actual, substantive division of property is beyond the power of the trial court and is unenforceable. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007(b); Pierce v. Pierce, 850 S.W.2d 675, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, writ denied); see also Perry v. Perry, 512 S.W.3d 523, 529 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (appointment of receiver with authority to sell home “in his sole discretion . . . upon terms and conditions reasonable to him” was improper modification of decree requiring house to be sold at reasonable time and for reasonable price); Contreras v. Contreras, 974 S.W.2d 155, 158 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.).
A provision in a decree awarding 100 percent of an asset to the party not in possession if the asset is determined to be undervalued is not enforceable if the asset was otherwise awarded in the decree, because such enforcement would constitute an alteration or change of the substantive division in violation of Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007. In re W.L.W., 370 S.W.3d 799, 806–07 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]).
A “residuary clause” ordering that any asset not disclosed by a party is awarded to the party not in possession is enforceable in accordance with the value of the asset on the date of divorce and not on the date of purchase. Meyer v. Meyer, No. 05-14-00655-CV, 2016 WL 446895, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 4, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Additionally, undisclosed property may be considered an asset even though encumbered by debt. Meyer, 2016 WL 446895, at *3.
Ordering the return of overpayments does not amend, modify, alter, or change the division of property in a decree. Garcia v. Alvarez, 367 S.W.3d 784, 787–88 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). In Gills v. Harris, No. 11-15-00018-CV, 2017 WL 469407 (Tex. App.—Eastland Feb. 2, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.), the appellant claimed that the provision ordering him to use “his best efforts to refinance the house solely in his name” was too indefinite to be enforced and was therefore not subject to clarification. When he had failed to refinance the house after five years, the trial court ordered him to refinance it within ninety days. The appellate court held that the imposition of a specific time and manner for refinancing the house did not amend, modify, alter, or change the underlying property division. See also Friend v. Friend, No. 02-15-00166-CV, 2016 WL 7240596 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 15, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (judgment finding husband liable for increased debt on line of credit previously divided in divorce was not modification of property division).
§ 31.7No Effect on Finality of Decree
An order of enforcement does not alter or affect the finality of the underlying decree of divorce or annulment. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.006(c); see In re Marriage of Zvara, 131 S.W.3d 566, 571 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.). The trial court may not enter orders to aid or clarify the property division in the decree before the thirtieth day after the final judgment is signed or the thirtieth day after a timely filed motion for new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment is overruled by court order or operation of law. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007(c).
Any enforcement proceeding may be joined, either independently or alternatively, with multiple remedies or claims. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.001(b) (suit to enforce governed by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).
§ 31.9Partition of Property Not Divided in Decree
The procedures for enforcement of a decree of divorce or annulment do not apply to actions to partition property not divided on dissolution of the marriage, which are governed by subchapter C of the Family Code and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to original lawsuits. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.004. For a discussion of division of property after divorce, see section 61.6 in this manual.
§ 31.10Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
If the court that rendered a final decree of divorce or annulment dividing retirement did not provide a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the payment of retirement benefits, a party may petition the court to render a QDRO or similar order. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.103. However, a trial court may not enter a postdivorce QDRO that changes the substantive division of property made in the original decree. Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 140–42 (Tex. 2018).
The court that rendered the final order has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render an enforceable QDRO. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101(a).
The court that rendered a QDRO retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to amend the order to correct the order or clarify its terms to effectuate the property division ordered by the court. Such an amended QDRO must be submitted to the plan administrator to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of a QDRO. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.1045. If the plan administrator determines that the amended QDRO does not satisfy the requirements of a QDRO, the court retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render a QDRO. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 9.104, 9.1045(b). However, a QDRO is a final, appealable order; therefore, if an appeal is not perfected, res judicata bars a later collateral attack after the court has lost plenary power. See Paredez v. Hussey, No. 01-18-00803-CV, 2020 WL 237934, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 16, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (motion to enter new QDRO twenty years after decree and first QDRO were signed denied).
In a proceeding for a postdecree QDRO, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by a party to a divorce or annulment against the other party to the divorce or annulment. The fees may be ordered paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order for fees by any means available for the enforcement of a judgment for debt. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.106.
The parties to an enforcement action are ordinarily not entitled to a jury. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.005. Concerning the availability of a jury when contempt charges are in issue, see section 35.5:2 in this manual.
Concerning the right to counsel when a party is seeking to hold the other party in contempt and incarceration is a possible result of the proceedings, see sections 35.5:3 and 35.5:4 in this manual.
For a discussion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in a contempt proceeding, see section 35.5:5 in this manual.
§ 31.14Costs and Attorney’s Fees
In any proceeding to enforce a property division, the court may award costs as in other civil cases. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.013. Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded and may be ordered paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order for fees by any means available for the enforcement of a judgment for debt. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.014. A court may not place an equitable lien on a former spouse’s real and personal property to ensure payment of attorney’s fees incurred in a postdivorce enforcement action. Higgins v. Higgins, 514 S.W.3d 382, 391 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied).
[Sections 31.15 through 31.20 are reserved for expansion.]
The Texas Family Code provides several significant remedies to secure compliance with an order for the division of property.
If the terms of the original order are not clear or specific enough to be enforceable by contempt, the court may render a clarifying order setting forth specific terms to enforce compliance with the original division of property. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.008(b); Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d 811, 818 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (clarification of method, time, and place of payment of tax liability upheld); Karigan v. Karigan, 239 S.W.3d 436, 438–39 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); In re Marriage of Jones, 154 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); Pearcy v. Pearcy, 884 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ). However, a clarification order may not be used to alter or modify the underlying order, even if it contains a substantive legal error. Wagner v. Davis, No. 02-19-00249-CV, 2020 WL 241381 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 16, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007(a), (b). But see In re D.N.P., No. 05-19-01083-CV, 2021 WL 790896, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 2, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (clarifying term “bonus” in decree as referring to “profit sharing” was not considered a substantive change).
On the request of a party or on the court’s own motion, the court may render a clarifying order before a motion for contempt is made or heard, in conjunction with a motion for contempt, or on denial of a motion for contempt. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.008(a). The order can be issued without a hearing. See In re Marriage of Alford, 40 S.W.3d 187, 190 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.).
A clarifying order applies only prospectively. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.008(c). The court shall provide a reasonable time for compliance before enforcing a clarifying order by contempt or in another manner. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.008(d). In clarifying its order the court may order the respondent to pay monies already accrued. Zeolla v. Zeolla, 15 S.W.3d 239, 243 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).
The trial court may not enter orders to clarify the property division in the decree before the thirtieth day after the final judgment is signed or the thirtieth day after a timely filed motion for new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment is overruled by court order or operation of law. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007(c).
§ 31.22Order for Delivery of Property
A court may make an order for the delivery of specific existing property regardless of its value, including an award of an existing sum of money or its equivalent. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.009.
The court may enforce by contempt an order requiring the delivery of specific property or the award of a right to future property. However, the court may not enforce by contempt an award of money, payable either in a lump sum or in future installments in the nature of debt, except for a sum of money in existence at the time of the decree or a matured right to future payments as provided by Family Code section 9.011. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.012(a), (b); see also Woolam v. Tussing, 54 S.W.3d 442, 449 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, no pet.) (provision in divorce decree rendered before September 1, 1995, ordering payment of support to former spouse not enforceable by contempt unless authorized by statute or constitutional provision; before September 1, 1995, Texas statutes and public policy did not sanction court-ordered alimony). But cf. In re Marriage of Zvara, 131 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (husband sold stock in account and was ordered to restore account with cash equivalent). A party may combine contempt and other appropriate remedies in an enforcement action. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.012(c).
An obligation to pay a debt imposed under a divorce decree is not enforceable by contempt. Shumate v. Shumate, 310 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no pet.); see also In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 769 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, orig. proceeding). Payments ordered to be paid by one spouse to the other in a property division are likewise considered debts, and failure to pay cannot be punished by imprisonment. In re Denson, No. 01-19-00653-CV, 2020 WL 425291 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 28, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The respondent in a petition to enforce a property division may not be held in contempt in absentia, regardless of whether the sanction imposed is coercive or punitive. In re Loeppky, No. 11-16-00322-CV, 2017 WL 1497383 (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 20, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Ex parte Alloju, 907 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex. 1995)).
For a comprehensive discussion of contempt proceedings, see chapter 35 in this manual.
If a party fails to comply with a decree of divorce or annulment and delivery of property ordered in the decree is no longer an adequate remedy, the court may render a money judgment for the damages caused by the failure to comply. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.010(a). If a party did not receive payments of money awarded, the court may render a money judgment against a defaulting party for the amount of unpaid payments to which the party is entitled. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.010(b); In re Marriage of Malacara, 223 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, no pet.) (per curiam).
A party is entitled to a share of a retirement account awarded to the party in a decree in the form of a money judgment when the funds have been removed from the retirement account contrary to the provisions of the decree. Degroot v. Degroot, 369 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). An agreed divorce provision requiring a parent to pay a child’s college expenses, not specifically included in the property division terms in the divorce decree, was enforceable only as a contract and not by a money judgment under Texas Family Code, chapter 9. In re B.M.Y., 2017 WL 3275505 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
A money judgment is enforceable by any means available for the enforcement of judgments for debts and is in addition to any other remedy provided by law. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.010(c), (d).
For additional information on and forms for the preparation of a money judgment, see State Bar of Texas, 1 Texas Collections Manual ch. 20 (2020 ed.). For information on and forms for postjudgment discovery, see State Bar of Texas, 2 Texas Collections Manual ch. 26.
COMMENT: An attorney collecting a money judgment may be subject to federal and state laws affecting debt collection. For a detailed discussion of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, see State Bar of Texas, 1 Texas Collections Manual ch. 2 (2020 ed.).
A judgment creditor may abstract a money judgment and record the abstract in the deed records of counties where the judgment debtor owns real property as soon as the judgment is signed. On application of a person in whose favor a judgment is rendered or of that person’s agent, attorney, or assignee, the judge or justice of the peace who rendered the judgment, or the court clerk, shall prepare, certify, and deliver an abstract to the applicant for a fee. The attorney for a person in whose favor a judgment is rendered in a small claims court or a justice court or a person in whose favor a judgment is rendered in a court other than a small claims court or justice court, or the person’s agent, attorney, or assignee, may prepare the abstract, and the preparer must verify it. Tex. Prop. Code § 52.002. The Property Code does not provide for a waiting period for filing an abstract. There are strict rules, however, for the form and content of the abstract. See Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003.
An abstract of judgment, properly recorded and indexed, generally creates a judgment lien on and attaches to any nonexempt real property of the judgment debtor located in that county, including nonexempt property acquired after the abstract is recorded and indexed. Tex. Prop. Code §§ 52.001, 52.0011, 52.0012.
If an abstracted judgment is either paid, settled, or reversed by the appellate courts, the party filing the abstract should record a release of judgment in the counties where the abstract was filed. See Tex. Prop. Code § 52.005(2).
For additional information on and forms for a judgment lien and abstract of judgment, see State Bar of Texas, 2 Texas Collections Manual ch. 27 (2020 ed.).
The court may impose a lien on property as part of the property division. However, a lien granted on a separate property homestead is invalid if the lien does not fit in any category allowed by Texas Constitution. See Hinton v. Burns, 433 S.W.3d 189, 200 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.). A money judgment to one spouse may also be secured by perfecting a lien on property of the other spouse. The lien operates as a security interest and creates a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties. The failure of the debtor to make timely payments in satisfaction of the money judgment allows the creditor to foreclose on and enforce the sale of the property subject to the lien. See McGoodwin v. McGoodwin, 671 S.W.2d 880, 883 (Tex. 1984); Magallanez v. Magallanez, 911 S.W.2d 91, 95 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ).
A judgment is final for the purpose of garnishment from the date it is signed unless a supersedeas bond is approved and filed in accordance with rule 47 (now rules 24.1 and 24.2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 657. The requirements of garnishment actions are set forth in rules 657–679 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and in sections 63.001–.005 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
For additional information on and forms for a postjudgment garnishment, see State Bar of Texas, 2 Texas Collections Manual ch. 27 (2020 ed.).
The turnover statute provides remedies by way of injunction and attachment to reach property of a judgment debtor. A court may order the judgment debtor to turn over nonexempt property together with related records to a designated sheriff or constable for execution; otherwise apply the property to satisfy the judgment; or appoint a receiver to take possession of the nonexempt property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002(b). But see In re C.H.C., 290 S.W.3d 929, 932–33 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (nonrefundable retainer paid to judgment debtor’s attorney not in judgment debtor’s possession or control).
A judgment creditor may seek relief under the turnover statute as soon as a judgment is signed. See Childre v. Great Southwest Life Insurance Co., 700 S.W.2d 284, 287 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ). A judgment creditor need not exhaust other legal remedies before seeking relief under the turnover statute if the statutory requirements are met. Hennigan v. Hennigan, 666 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). A judgment debtor is not entitled to notice and a hearing before the entry of a turnover order. In re Marriage of Tyeskie, 558 S.W.3d 719, 725 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002).
A trial court may not confer the exercise of nondelegable judicial discretion to a receiver. A receiver has no constitutional authority to adjudicate parties’ rights. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002, an order must specifically identify the nonexempt property that is susceptible to turnover relief. Further, the order must specify the actions to be taken with respect to that property. Congleton v. Shoemaker, Nos. 09-11-00453-CV, 09-11-00654-CV, 2012 WL 1249406, at *2–4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 12, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
A trial court’s order authorizing and requesting a foreign court to appoint a receiver to help dispose of property as stated in the divorce decree is not an unauthorized modification of the decree. Vats v. Vats, No. 01-12-00255-CV, 2012 WL 2108672, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 7, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).
For additional information on and forms for turnover, see State Bar of Texas, 2 Texas Collections Manual ch. 27 (2020 ed.).
Generally a writ of execution may not issue until thirty days after the judgment is signed or the motion for new trial is overruled. Tex. R. Civ. P. 627. An exception exists for earlier execution if the judgment debtor is about to remove, transfer, or hide property for the purpose of defrauding creditors and the creditor or attorney files an affidavit to this effect; with such evidence, the judgment creditor may have assets seized as soon as the judgment is signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 628. Execution proceedings are governed by rules 621–656 and by chapter 34 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
For additional information on and forms for execution and property subject to and exempt from execution, see State Bar of Texas, 2 Texas Collections Manual ch. 27 (2020 ed.).
The receipt by one spouse of property awarded to the other spouse creates a fiduciary obligation and imposes a constructive trust on the property for the benefit of the owner spouse. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.011(b). See Ishee v. Ishee, No. 09-15-00197-CV, 2017 WL 2293150 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 4, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (former husband had fiduciary duty to remit to former wife her assigned percentage of income he received from business identified in divorce decree). See also Lancashire v. Lancashire, No. 05-16-00890-CV, 2017 WL 2952995 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 11, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (provision naming former husband as constructive trustee to extent of payment obligations on sale or transfer of stock shares did not impose further obligations to provide tax returns, financial statements, or other information showing status of shares).
§ 31.31Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
If a spouse is awarded a money judgment in a divorce and after the divorce his or her former spouse makes a transfer of property, the transfer is fraudulent under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and may be set aside if (1) the former spouse made the transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or (2) the former spouse made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the former spouse intended to incur, or reasonably believed he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.005(a); Mladenka v. Mladenka, 130 S.W.3d 397, 404 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
For a discussion of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, see section 3.74 in this manual.
[Sections 31.32 through 31.40 are reserved for expansion.]
III. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
A judgment of another state may be enforced in accordance with the terms of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, chapter 35 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
A properly authenticated foreign judgment may be filed for enforcement with any Texas court of competent jurisdiction, whereupon it is treated like any other judgment of that court. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 35.003–.007. See Dalton v. Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126, 135–36 (Tex. 2018) (while full faith and credit clause requires Texas courts to recognize orders of other states, Texas law governs methods by which Texas courts may enforce rights and obligations under foreign judgment); see also Gesswein v. Gesswein, 566 S.W.3d 34, 39 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2018, pet. denied).
Alternatively, a judgment creditor retains the right to bring an action to enforce a judgment instead of filing it under those provisions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 35.008.
Rule 308b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the enforceability of judgments and arbitration awards based on foreign law in suits involving a marriage relationship or a parent-child relationship. The primary purpose for the adoption of this rule was to counteract the possible unfair effects of judgments and awards granted under Sharia law. When dealing with a foreign judgment related to family law, the practitioner must follow the specific notice provisions set forth in rule 308b. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 308b.