Kazmi v. Kazmi

693 S.W.3d 556

Syed KAZMI, Appellant

v.Syeda KAZMI, Appellee

NO. 03-22-00330-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Filed: November 17, 2023

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D-1-AG-18-001131, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING

Carlos Salinas, for Appellee.

Deterrean Gamble, Matthew Deal, Austin, Nicole Loya, Daniel Nelson, for The State of Texas.

Robert Frazer, Maitreya Tomlinson, for Appellant.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

OPINION

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Syed Kazmi appeals from a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Syeda Maheen Kazmi (Maheen).¹ By eleven issues, Syed challenges the district court’s division of the community estate; awards of child support, spousal support, and attorney’s fees; judgments for retroactive child and spousal support; deviation from the standard possession order; and setting payment deadlines that expired before the court signed the judgment. We will affirm in part, reverse and render in part, and remand in part.

BACKGROUND²

The parties are both originally from Pakistan. Syed moved to the Austin area with his parents in 1992. After graduating from Duke University in 2008, he returned to Austin to pursue a PhD in biomedical engineering from the University of Texas. At the same time, Maheen was training as a doctor in Pakistan. In 2015, the parties married in Pakistan in a ceremony paid for by both their parents.

Syed returned to the United States after the marriage while Maheen remained in Pakistan to finish her last year of medical school. Maheen applied for permanent residency in the United States with Syed as her sponsor. As part of the process, Syed executed an affidavit promising to maintain her income at not less than 125% of the federal poverty level. See 8 U.S.C. § 1183a. Maheen’s application was approved, and she moved in with Syed in his parents’ residence in August 2016.

Maheen immediately began studying for the first part of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), a prerequisite to obtaining a Texas medical license. Maheen did not have a driver’s license, and Syed did not add her as a signatory to his bank account until a few months after she arrived. Syed explained at trial that she chose not to pursue a driver’s license so that she could focus on her studies and did not need access to a bank account because he or his parents covered all her expenses.

Although the couple originally planned for Maheen to take the first part of the exam as soon as possible, she was dissatisfied with her scores on practice exams. She could not fully understand the factual details behind each question, the questions used "advanced terminology" that she was unfamiliar with, and the questions required her to employ a procedure for diagnosing a condition that was significantly different from how she had been trained in Pakistan. To address these issues, she enrolled in courses at Austin Community College on subjects such as organic chemistry and microbiology. At the time of trial, her plan was to complete the last of those courses by summer of 2022 and then enroll in a physician’s assistant program. The coursework for the program would help with her test preparation and working as a physician’s assistant would provide clinical experience. She would then take the USMLE and enroll in a medical residency program.

Maheen learned that she was pregnant in mid-June 2017. Approximately a week later, Maheen left the house and moved in with a family member in Pflugerville. The parties enlisted their sheikh to mediate, and Maheen returned home approximately a month and a half later. She left again in August when Syed was out of the country on business. To make ends meet, Maheen borrowed money from her family. The district court later admitted a summary she prepared reflecting she owes them $36,060.

Z.K. was born in February 2018. The parties agreed that Syed would provide Maheen $400 in child support per month provided in the form of a prepaid credit card. They also agreed that Syed would pay the cost of Z.K.’s birth and the portions of his medical bills not covered by insurance.

In July 2018, the Office of the Attorney General sued Syed (and named Maheen as a party) over support for Z.K. The parties reached a mediated settlement agreement calling for Syed to immediately start weekly two-hour supervised visits with Z.K., transitioning to unsupervised visits twice a week. Syed agreed to pay $1,440 in child support beginning March 1, 2019. The district court signed temporary orders consistent with the agreement.

Syed filed a petition for divorce, and Maheen filed a counterpetition. Maheen alleged in her petition that Syed had committed fraud on the community and asked the district court to reconstitute the marital estate. After the parties exchanged discovery, it emerged that Syed had transferred significant sums of money from his accounts, including the joint account, from 2017 to 2019. The district court admitted records at trial reflecting that Syed transferred or withdrew $38,940 in 2016; approximately $50,000 in 2017; and $47,000 in 2019. Syed and his mother, Iffat Kazmi, testified that the transfers were repayments for debts the couple or Syed individually owed to his parents. Maheen also asked the district court to order Syed to continue to pay child support, to pay spousal support pursuant to the I-864 affidavit, to award her retroactive judgments for unpaid support, and to order Syed to pay her attorney’s fees. She requested that the court appoint her managing conservator of Z.K. with the right to establish his primary residence and Syed possessory conservator, and to award Syed possession under the expanded standard possession order.

In July 2020, an associate judge signed temporary orders increasing Syed’s child support obligation to $1,782 per month and ordering him to pay $2,500 per month in interim spousal support and $13,000 in attorney’s fees.

In November 2020, Maheen filed an amended petition that omitted her request to enforce the I-864 affidavit. In January of 2021, Maheen filed an amended petition that included her request for I-864 support and a motion for leave to amend.

The parties tried the case to the bench on February 8–11, 2021.³ On the second day of trial, the parties’ counsel announced an agreement on certain matters, including Maheen’s motion for leave to amend. Syed’s counsel stated that while he did not agree with the requested relief, "we understand that [Maheen’s petition] has been amended to this trial and are proceeding on those issues." The district court accepted the agreement and proceeded with the trial. The district court heard testimony from the parties, Iffat, and the parties’ counsel. At the close of trial, the district court granted the divorce, announced its ruling on several issues, and asked the parties to draw up a draft divorce decree.

Maheen filed a motion to enter the decree in August 2021. Syed filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification and attached his affidavit. On March 7, 2022, the district court denied Syed’s motion and signed the final decree of divorce.⁴ In the decree, the district court:

• ordered Syed to pay $1,782 per month in child support and $1,329 in spousal support under the I-849 affidavit;

• awarded Maheen a $14,975 judgment for retroactive child support and a $47,629 judgment for retroactive spousal support;

• ordered Syed to pay Maheen $53,255.70 in attorney’s fees and expenses;

• found that Syed depleted the community estate of $163,377 through constructive fraud and awarded Maheen a $99,125 judgment to compensate her;

• ordered Syed to pay Maheen $2,200 for "maintenance" of the "2014 Chrysler Town & Country motor vehicle" awarded to her; and

• appointed the parties joint managing conservators with Maheen having the right to designate Z.K.’s primary residence and Syed having possession under a modified standard possession order until Z.K. turns eight, at which time Syed will have possession under the expanded standard possession order.

At Syed’s request, the district court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Syed filed a motion for new trial and an alternative motion to modify the judgment. In the motion for new trial, Syed challenged the award of attorney’s fees, child support, spousal support, and possession and access to Z.K. Syed argued in the motion to modify that the judgment improperly set deadlines for him to begin paying the various awards that preceded the signing of the judgment. The district court denied the motion to modify by written order and allowed the motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law. This appeal ensued.

LEGAL STANDARDS

[1] We review the issues raised in this appeal for an abuse of discretion. See In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007) (conservatorship); Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981) (property division); Kelly v. Kelly, 634 S.W.3d 335, 364 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (spousal support); In re E.A.C., 665 S.W.3d 763, 775 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.) (attorney’s fees); White v. White, No. 03-21-00323-CV, 2022 WL 2542004, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (child support). A trial court abuses its discretion when it rules arbitrarily, unreasonably, without regard for guiding rules or principles, or without supporting evidence. Transcor Astra Group S.A. v. Petrobras Am. Inc., 650 S.W.3d 462, 482 (Tex. 2022).

[2–4] In this context, the abuse-of-discretion standard overlaps with traditional standards for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied). Consequently, the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error but are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. A.S. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 665 S.W.3d 786, 795 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023, no pet.). The...