Robbins v. Robbins
Decision Date | 17 May 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. 02-16-00285-CV,02-16-00285-CV |
Citation | 550 S.W.3d 846 |
Parties | Jerry Shad ROBBINS, Appellant v. Rhonda Garrett ROBBINS, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Perry J. Cockerell, Adkerson, Hauder, & Bezney P.C., Dallas, TX., for Appellant.
Allison Bedore, Law Office of Allison Bedore, Weatherford, TX, for Appellee.
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and PITTMAN, JJ.
Appellant Jerry Shad Robbins appeals from the trial court's judgment finding that he breached a fiduciary duty to his former wife Rhonda Garrett Robbins, awarding her all the net proceeds from the sale of what remained of the former marital residential property (the Property), and ordering him to pay her attorney's fees of $2,500. We reverse and render judgment that Rhonda take nothing.
Rhonda and Jerry divorced in June 2004. The agreed decree did not characterize the Property but contained the following provisions concerning it:
Almost twelve years after the divorce, in March 2016, Rhonda filed a motion for enforcement, claiming that Jerry failed to comply with the divorce decree's provisions for dealing with the sale of the Property and failed to cooperate with the selling of the Property and seeking that he be held in contempt. She also sought clarification of the decree if any part of it was found not to be "specific enough to be enforced by contempt," brought a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Jerry, and requested attorney's fees, expenses, costs, and interest.
Rhonda requested that Jerry be ordered "to fully cooperate in the sale of the [P]roperty, including but not limited to signing any and all documents necessary for the sale," and that the Property be sold with all proceeds to be awarded to her.
Jerry filed a motion for a bench warrant,1 which the trial court granted, and Jerry appeared personally at trial.
Jerry had filed a motion for continuance before trial, and at trial, he indicated that he was not ready to proceed because he did not have the necessary documentary evidence. The trial court "proceed[ed] anyway." At the trial court's direction, Rhonda's lawyer specified Jerry's alleged contemptible conduct: "We are asking that the court hold [Jerry] in contempt for failing to cooperate with the sale of the [P]roperty." The trial court warned that the lawyer would "have to be very specific in that regard." The trial court also pointed out that the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim was not an enforcement claim but would, if successful, result in a civil judgment. Rhonda's lawyer spelled out the relief requested—reimbursement for Rhonda's "portion of the marital property that was damaged due to [Jerry]'s actions" and attorney's fees. Finally, at Rhonda's lawyer's request, the trial judge took judicial notice of the documents already on file.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goyal v. Hora
...168 S.W.3d at 826. We review a trial court's findings of fact for legal and factual sufficiency under these same standards. Robbins v. Robbins, 550 S.W.3d 846, 854 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.). When the record contains some evidence of a substantive and probative character supportin......
-
Clark v. Clark
... ... findings are subject to review under the same legal and ... factual sufficiency standards as jury findings. Robbins ... v. Robbins, 550 S.W.3d 846, 854 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth ... 2018, no pet.); see Sparks v. Rutkowski, No ... 03-17-00452-CV, 2018 ... ...
-
Klages v. Klages
...S.W.3d at 826. We review a trial court's findings of fact for legal and factual sufficiency under these same standards. See Robbins v. Robbins, 550 S.W.3d 846, 854 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.). When the record contains some evidence of a substantive and probative character supportin......
-
In re K.F.
... ... findings are subject to review under the same legal and ... factual sufficiency standards as jury findings. Robbins ... v. Robbins, 550 S.W.3d 846, 854 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth ... 2018, no pet.) ... The findings of fact have the same force and ... ...