Maxwell v. Maxwell

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Meagan Hassan Justice
• Decision Date: 26 October 2021
• Docket Number: 14-20-00298-CV
• Citation: Maxwell v. Maxwell, 14-20-00298-CV (Tex. App. Oct 26, 2021)
• Parties: THOMAS BART MAXWELL, JR., Appellant v. DANIELLE LEMOINE MAXWELL, Appellee

THOMAS BART MAXWELL, JR., Appellant v. DANIELLE LEMOINE MAXWELL, Appellee

No. 14-20-00298-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District

October 26, 2021

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 322-619363-17

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Meagan Hassan Justice

Thomas Bart Maxwell, Jr. ("Husband") and Danielle Lemoine Maxwell ("Wife") were married on June 30, 2006 and divorced approximately seven years later. The parties signed a "Final Agreed Decree of Divorce" on October 7 2013, dividing their money and other assets approximately in half. However, the divorce decree also awarded to Husband the full equity interest he held in his employer, Home Care Home Base (the "HCHB interest"). In the years following the parties' divorce, Husband's equity interest underwent several partial sales for a total of approximately $14 million in proceeds.

In May 2017, Wife filed a petition for bill of review. In her second amended petition, Wife alleged that, during their divorce Husband (1) made material misrepresentations regarding the characterization of the HCHB interest, and (2) simultaneously threatened Wife with financial ruin if she retained her own divorce attorney. Wife alleged that this extrinsic fraud prevented her from asserting a meritorious claim for the HCHB interest.

The trial court held a bill of review hearing in September 2018. After hearing evidence and the argument of counsel, the trial court signed an order granting the bill of review and setting aside the parties' property division as set forth in their 2013 divorce decree.

The parties proceeded to a jury trial and the trial court signed a final judgment on December 18, 2019. With respect to assets other than the HCHB interest, the trial court's final judgment retained approximately the same division as set forth in the parties' 2013 divorce decree. With respect to the HCHB interest, the trial court awarded Wife $3, 152 726.50 as her portion of the asset. The trial court also awarded Wife $100, 000 in attorney's fees.

Husband appealed and Wife filed a cross-appeal. For the reasons below, we affirm the trial court's final judgment.^[1]

Overview

The issues raised in this appeal address three separate parts of the underlying proceeding: the order granting the bill of review, the trial court's subsequent property division, and the trial court's attorney's fees award. We delineate our analyses accordingly, beginning with the bill of review proceeding.

A bill of review has three substantive elements: (1) a meritorious claim or defense to the underlying judgment, (2) an excuse justifying the failure to present that claim or defense based on the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party, and (3) an excuse unmixed with the petitioner's fault or negligence. Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406-07 (Tex. 1979). Challenging the trial court's order granting the bill of review, Husband asserts Wife did not make the requisite showing with respect to these three elements. Husband also contends the trial court's findings of fact with respect to these elements are insufficient. We overrule Husband's challenges.

Next, our analysis turns to the trial court's property division. On this point, the parties' arguments focus on the trial court's division of the HCHB interest. In three issues, Husband asserts:

1. the HCHB interest was not community property;

2. the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's division of the HCHB interest; and

3. the trial court issued insufficient findings of fact with respect to the property division.

In her cross-appeal, Wife asserts the trial court incorrectly valued the HCHB interest. We overrule Husband's and Wife's issues with respect to the trial court's property division.

Finally, Husband and Wife challenge the trial court's attorney's fees award. We overrule these challenges and affirm the trial court's final judgment.

Analysis

I. Bill of Review

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

A bill of review is an independent action to set aside a judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to challenge by a motion for new trial. PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 275 (Tex. 2012); Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 406. Courts narrowly construe the grounds on which a plaintiff may obtain a bill of review due to Texas's fundamental public policy favoring the finality of judgments. Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam); see also Okon v. Boldon, No. 02-14-00334-CV, 2015 WL 4652775, at *4 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("the grounds on which a petitioner may obtain relief by bill of review are narrow and defined"). To set aside a judgment by bill of review, the petitioner must plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) that she was prevented from making by fraud, accident, or wrongful act of her opponent, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of her own. Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 406-07; see also Moseley v. Omega OB-GYN Assocs. of S. Arlington, No. 2-06-291-CV, 2008 WL 2510638, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 19, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (per curiam).

We generally review the ruling on a petition for bill of review for an abuse of discretion. See Kukuk v. Kukuk, No. 02-14-00382-CV, 2015 WL 4504224, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 23, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must decide whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles; in other words, we must decide whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007). "An appellate court cannot conclude that a trial court abused its discretion merely because the appellate court would have ruled differently in the same circumstances." Kukuk, 2015 WL 4504224, at *1.

Under the abuse of discretion standard, challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error but instead are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. Okon, 2015 WL 4652775, at *3. The trial court does not abuse its discretion if it bases its decision on conflicting evidence and some evidence of a substantive and probative character supports its decision. Kukuk, 2015 WL 4504224, at *1 (citing Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam)). Moreover, the trial court "is the fact-finder at a hearing on a bill of review and has the duty of ascertaining the true facts, and it is within the court's province to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the weight to be given their testimony." Okon, 2015 WL 4652775, at *3 (internal quotation omitted).

B. Evidence and the Trial Court's Ruling

Husband challenges whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court's findings regarding the three elements necessary to grant a bill of review. See Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 406-07. Before addressing these specific arguments, we summarize the testimony and evidence presented at the bill of review hearing. The bill of review hearing was separated into two parts: in the first part, Wife presented evidence to establish a meritorious defense to the 2013 property division. In the second part of the hearing, the evidence addressed the two remaining bill-of-review elements.

1. First Part of Hearing

Husband was the first witness to testify at the hearing. Admitted into evidence during Husband's testimony was the parties' divorce decree signed on October 7, 2013. Under the heading "Division of Marital Estate", the decree states that: "The Court finds that the following is a just and right division of the parties' marital estate, having due regard for the rights of each party." Reviewing this division, Husband agreed that it divides "almost all of [the] marital property 50-50". The divorce decree also states that Husband would retain 100% of the HCHB interest. Husband testified that, at the time of the divorce, his equity interest was "just over 1 percent".

Also admitted into evidence during Husband's testimony was a worksheet he filled out with the title "Inventory and Appraisement". According to Husband, his attorney gave him the worksheet to complete in August 2013 as part of his preparation for the divorce. The HCHB interest was included in the portion of the worksheet entitled, "Community Estate of the Parties". Husband listed the HCHB interest as "[a]pproximately 1.086 percent" and valued it at $2.6 million. The portion of the worksheet entitled "Separate Estates of the Parties" is struck through and there are no separate assets listed.

Husband testified that he sold a percentage of the HCHB interest on December 19, 2013, for approximately $6.7 million. Husband said Wife was "well aware" of the HCHB interest; according to Husband, he had sold a portion of the HCHB interest for "[a] little over a million bucks" in 2011. Husband testified that he used this sale to estimate the value of the HCHB interest he included on the "Inventory and Appraisement" worksheet.

Wife was the second witness to testify at the hearing. According to Wife, she was 47 years old at the time of the hearing and had completed one year of college. Wife said she and Husband were married on June 30, 2006; according to Wife, neither she nor Husband brought substantial financial assets into the marriage. Wife testified that Husband "handled the finances" during their marriage and said that she did not "feel that [she] had the ability to make purchases when [she] wanted to." Wife testified that Husband "controlled all the banking and the money" and...