Martinez v. Martinez

Miguel Martinez, Appellant v. Lilia Martinez, Appellee

No. 02-21-00353-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

December 29, 2022

On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 325-640054-18

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Appellant Miguel Martinez (Husband) appeals from a divorce decree dissolving his marriage to appellee Lilia Martinez (Wife). In two issues, Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Wife spousal maintenance and by dividing the marital estate in an inequitable manner. We will affirm.

I. Background

Husband and Wife were married in 1987 and separated in August 2017. In May 2018, Husband sued for divorce and Wife countersued. As Husband and Wife have no minor children, the divorce proceedings focused on the division of property and Wife's request for spousal maintenance.

Husband is a warehouse worker, and Wife is a retail salesperson. At the time of divorce, Husband earned $20 per hour, and Wife earned $15 per hour. Each spouse lived in a separate home and neither had a mortgage. Other significant assets included real property in Mexico, Husband's and Wife's retirement accounts, several bank accounts, motor vehicles and other miscellaneous personal property.

At trial, the most significant property division dispute concerned the real property in Mexico. Wife asserted that she had purchased the property from her grandfather before she married Husband and presented evidence, including her aunt's testimony, to support this claim.^[1] However, Husband claimed that the property had been purchased after marriage and was therefore part of the community estate. The parties also disagreed regarding the property's value: Wife estimated the value to be approximately $13,000, while Husband contended that it was worth $120,000.^[2]

In support of her request for spousal maintenance, Wife presented evidence concerning her income and expenses as well as her physical disability. Wife testified that as of the time of trial, she could not pay all of her bills without spousal support^[3]and that her expenses would increase after the divorce was finalized because Husband was currently paying for her homeowner's, car, and health insurance. In addition, Wife and her physician's assistant Melissa Encinas testified that Wife suffers from fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis, that these conditions could affect Wife's ability to work, and that the symptoms caused by these conditions would likely worsen over time.

After a three-day trial,^[4] the trial court entered a final divorce decree in August 2021. The decree, among other things, awarded Wife 100 percent of the Mexico property and required Husband to pay Wife spousal maintenance of $450 per month for 60 months.^[5]

Husband timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and filed a motion for new trial. In October 2021, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and heard Husband's motion for new trial, which the court denied on November 1, 2021. This appeal ensued.

II. Discussion

A. Spousal Maintenance

In his first issue, Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Wife spousal maintenance. Specifically, Husband argues that the evidence is insufficient to show (1) that Wife has a disability that prevents her from providing for her minimum reasonable needs and (2) that Wife lacks sufficient property upon divorce to provide for her minimum reasonable needs.

A spouse in a divorce proceeding is eligible to seek spousal maintenance if that spouse lacks sufficient property to meet minimum reasonable needs and cannot support herself due to an incapacitating physical or mental disability. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.051(2)(A); In re Green, 221 S.W.3d 645, 647 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); In re Marriage of Elabd, 589 S.W.3d 280, 283 (Tex. App.-Waco 2019, no pet.). The term "minimum reasonable needs" is not defined in the Family Code, nor are there cases defining the term. Slicker v. Slicker, 464 S.W.3d 850, 860 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2015, no pet.). Rather, the minimum reasonable needs for a particular individual is a fact-specific determination that should be made by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. Id.

Section 8.054(a)(1) of the Texas Family Code generally limits a trial court's award of spousal maintenance based on the length of the marriage. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 8.054(a)(1); Green, 221 S.W.3d at 647; Elabd, 589 S.W.3d at 283. But under Section 8.054(b), if the spouse seeking maintenance is unable to support herself through appropriate employment because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability, the trial court may order spousal maintenance for an indefinite period of time as long as the disability continues. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.054(b); Green, 221 S.W.3d at 647; Elabd, 589 S.W.3d at 283. Additionally, Section 8.056 provides that the obligation to pay future maintenance terminates on the death of either party; the remarriage of the obligee; or if, after a hearing, the trial court determines that the obligee "cohabits with another person with whom the obligee has a dating or romantic relationship in a permanent place of abode on a continuing basis." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.056; Green, 221 S.W.3d at 647; Elabd, 589 S.W.3d at 283.

We review a trial court's award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Smith, No. 02-20-00370-CV, 2022 WL 1682427, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth May 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Eabd, 589 S.W.3d at 283-84. A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles-in other words, if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably. Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605, 610 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). Under the abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds for asserting error, but they are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. Elabd, 589 S.W.3d at 283; Dunn v. Dunn, 177 S.W.3d 393, 396 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). A trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is some evidence of a substantive and probative character to support its decision or if reasonable minds could differ as to the result. Smith v. Smith, 115 S.W.3d 303, 305 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (first citing Lopez v. Lopez, 55 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2001, no pet.); and then citing In re Bertram, 981 S.W.2d 820, 826-27 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.)).

1. Evidence of Disability

In support of its award of spousal maintenance, the trial court made the following findings:

[Wife] is unable to earn sufficient income to provide for her minimum reasonable needs because of an ongoing incapacitating physical disability or mental disability.

[Wife]'s ability to provide for her minimum reasonable needs is substantially diminished because of a physical disability, namely multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia leaving her in chronic pain, fatigued, with visual disturbance and . . . depression. [Wife]'s disability would get progressively worse and affect her ability to work.

Though he does not explicitly reference the above findings in his brief, Husband argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the award of spousal maintenance because Wife failed to show that she suffered from an incapacitating disability that prevented her from continuing to work as she always has. We disagree.

There is no authority directly addressing the quantum of evidence that is required to prove disability in an action for spousal maintenance. Kelly v. Kelly, 634 S.W.3d 335, 367 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (first citing Roberts v. Roberts, 531 S.W.3d 224, 228-29 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2017, pet. denied); then citing Smith, 115 S.W.3d at 309; and then citing Pickens v. Pickens, 62 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied)). "As the factfinder, the trial court may reasonably infer an individual's incapacity from circumstantial evidence or the competent testimony of a lay witness." Id. (first citing Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 228; then citing Smith, 115 S.W.3d at 309; and then citing Pickens, 62 S.W.3d at 215). However, the evidence must be probative to establish (1) that a disability exists and (2) that this disability prevents the party seeking support payments from providing for his or her minimum reasonable needs. Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 230 (first citing Pickens, 62 S.W.3d at 216; then citing Galindo v. Galindo, 04-13-00325-CV, 2014 WL 1390474, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Apr. 9, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); and then citing Smith, 115 S.W.3d at 309). "The party seeking maintenance must present probative evidence 'that rises above a mere assertion that unsubstantiated symptoms collectively amount to an incapacitating disability.'" Kelly, 634 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Roberts, 531 S.W.3d at 230).

The trial court heard testimony from Wife, Wife's physician's assistant Encinas, and Husband that supported the court's findings concerning Wife's disability. Wife and Encinas both testified that Wife suffers from fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis and detailed Wife's symptoms, which include chronic headaches and other pain, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, dizziness, depression, and visual disturbances. At trial, Husband acknowledged that Wife had suffered from these symptoms prior to their separation.

Further there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that Wife's medical conditions affect her ability to work-and thus to provide for her needs. Wife testified that her medical conditions make it difficult...