Texas' jurisdiction over foreign property

            I recently had occasion to research the question of whether a Texas divorce court can divide community marital property which is actually located outside of Texas -- specifically in this instance in a state we’ll call Inner Louisiana.  I was pleased to learn that the answer my gut provided me was right, the answer is “Yes,” but it’s more convoluted than I originally thought.  Imagine that …  a convoluted question of law.

 

            My client, a young lady who moved to Brazoria County, specifically Pearland from Inner Louisiana, shared ownership of a home in that state.  As a capital asset of the marriage, it became apparent that the equity in that residence is one of her largest assets moving forward and it was necessary to seek and protect it for her in the divorce which was filed in Angleton, in the Brazoria County District Court.

 

            One way to break down jurisdiction is jurisdiction of the court over “stuff,” and jurisdiction over “people.”  So, there is in rem jurisdiction, which is the court’s power and authority over things, and in personam jurisdiction, which corresponds to the court’s authority over people.

 

            Another generalization, a person must have “sufficient contact” with a jurisdiction, such as Texas, in order for Texas to have authority over that person.  If you’ve never set foot in Texas, and never transacted business in Texas, etc., then Texas probably can’t exert authority over you unless you consent to allow it to do so.  I’m glossing over a huge body of developed law here, but you get the picture.  More convolutions here of course.  This is where the Special Appearance comes into play, but that’s a topic for another day.

 

            If the above rules governing jurisdiction over people weren’t complicated enough, the rules regarding things and property can be even more obscure.  Oftentimes, the courts have the power to do indirectly what they’ve been told, often by themselves,  they can’t do directly.  This leads to literary gymnastics by the court in order to reach a goal the judge(s) finds justified.

 

When a party is before a Texas court, the court has in personam jurisdiction over the person and can do indirectly what it cannot do directly. In a divorce case, where the parties in the marriage own out-of-state community real property, the trial court can consider the existence and value of that realty in dividing the community property of the parties and can take several types of actions in the exercise of its equitable powers, e.g. order one party to execute a conveyance of the out-of-state property to the other party(that’d be John giving Jane a deed to it, or vice-versa), or order a judgment be assessed against one party to render a just and right division.  See Matter of Marriage of Glaze, 605 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980).

 

Although a Texas trial court does not have in rem jurisdiction over the Inner Louisiana property, it can partition real property interests in foreign realty provided that the court has in personam jurisdiction over both parties and can consider existence and value of such realty in dividing estates of parties. In re Marriage of Read, 634 S.W.2d 343, 348 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1982, writ dism'd). The court in Read further affirmed the power of the trial court to order one party to execute a conveyance of the out of state property to the other party. Id. at 349 (citing Glaze, at 724.

 

In one case the appellate court found that a trial court had not abused its discretion in awarding real and personal property located in EGYPT to one of the spouses in the divorce action. Ismail v. Ismail, 702 S.W.2d 216, 222 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref. n.r.e.).

 

We are left with the trial court being unable to determine title to foreign realty in a divorce action, but it can consider its value in dividing the property, award it to one of the spouses, and order one party to execute a conveyance of the property. Id.

 

In the same vein as, and cited to heavily above, is the Tyropanis v. Tyropanis case, at 1992 WL 352802 (Tex.App.-Dallas), where property located in GREECE was being divided by the Texas court.

 

            So, what the above boils down to is, if:  A) the parties are properly before the Texas Court; B) the Texas Court isn’t being asked to actually determine title to property, but only to divide ownership in property whose title is clearly with the community before it – then the Texas divorce court can split up such property between the husband and wife, assigning ownership between them as the court determines is proper.  That’s a “just & right division of property,” which isn’t necessarily an “equal division,” but again, that’s a topic for a different day.

 

Merry Christmas! & Happy New Year when it gets here,

J3

 

 

            John Powell, III handles all types of Family Law matters, including, but not limited to, divorce, child custody and support cases, adoptions and paternity matters, grandparent’s rights and access to their grandchildren, sibling interventions, and modifications of previously-issued orders of the court concerning support, possession of, and access to, a person’s children.