Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed an amended order appointing a receiver to sell property that the parties’ 2013 divorce decree had required them to sell. The court held that the receiver appointment was authorized by the decree and was not an abuse of discretion, and it rejected or deemed waived the appellant’s arguments concerning limitations, laches, dormancy, notice, due process, and receivership procedures.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver because the divorce decree expressly required sale of the property, authorized appointment of a receiver if the property remained unsold after March 15, 2014, and the property remained unsold.
- Jeanne waived the limitations and laches defenses because she did not plead them and the record did not show that they were tried by consent.
- Jeanne did not preserve her dormancy complaint, and the record did not establish that the decree had become dormant.
- Jeanne's due-process complaints did not warrant reversal because the record showed that she received notice and appeared at the relevant hearings, and she failed to preserve her constitutional objections or adequately brief them.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a receiver to sell property pursuant to the parties' divorce decree.
- Whether limitations, laches, or dormancy barred enforcement of the divorce decree.
- Whether the trial court violated Jeanne's due-process rights by appointing a receiver without adequate notice, an evidentiary hearing, or sufficient findings.
- Whether the receivership order was overbroad or disproportionate and whether alleged procedural defects under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 695 and 695a required reversal.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (17)
- Smith v. Myers, No. 01-13-00722-CV, 2014 WL 3002086, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 1, 2014, pet. denied)(followed)
- Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007)(followed)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex. 2004)(followed)
- Chapa v. Chapa, No. 04-12-00519-CV, 2012 WL 6728242, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 28, 2012, no pet.)(distinguished)
- Rowe v. Rowe, 887 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied)(distinguished)
- S.T. v. H.K., Nos. 02-21-00408-CV, 02-21-00420-CV, 02-22-00010-CV, 2023 WL 2607751, at *18 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2023, pet. denied)(followed)
- Rusk v. Rusk, 5 S.W.3d 299, 306-07 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)(followed)
- Allen v. Allen, No. 02-17-00031-CV, 2018 WL 547586, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 25, 2018, no pet.)(followed by analogy)
- Green Diesel, LLC v. VicNRG, LLC, No. 14-13-00017-CV, 2013 WL 3354645, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 2, 2013, no pet.)(followed)
- Fite v. Emtel, Inc., No. 01-07-00273-CV, 2008 WL 4427676, at *9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 2, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op. on reh'g)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…