Spousal Management

[texas121]

In Texas, at the final divorce hearing. The judge was well aware that the wife is currently living with another man but ordered the husband to pay Spousal Management anyway as part of his ruling. The couple had been legally separated for nine months when the other man moved in. Can the husband go before the judge and ask for the Spousal Support be terminated for the reason of the wife cohabitating with another man? Again, the judge knew, at the time of his ruling that the wife was cohabitating with another man and ordered Spousal Support to be paid for 5 years

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It sounds like your attorney did not negotiate any terms into the order. As you stated, it is signed and over now.

 

[latigo]

In Texas, at the final divorce hearing. The judge was well aware that the wife is currently living with another man but ordered the husband to pay Spousal Management anyway as part of his ruling. The couple had been legally separated for nine months when the other man moved in. Can the husband go before the judge and ask for the Spousal Support be terminated for the reason of the wife cohabitating with another man? Again, the judge knew, at the time of his ruling that the wife was cohabitating with another man and ordered Spousal Support to be paid for 5 years

("Maintenance" - spousal maintenance. Not spousal management.
The judge probably can't even manage his own spouse.)
___________________

Q: Can the husband go before the judge and ask for the Spousal Support be terminated for the reason of the wife cohabiting with another man?

A: Yes, if the ex husband can prove that the ex wife is cohabiting with another person with whom she has “a dating or romantic relationship in a permanent place of abode or a continuing basis” –
The court shall (not may, but shall) terminate the maintenance payments. See:Texas Family Code Section 8.056 (b)

Also, if the relationship was existing at the time of the entry of the suppot order, the ex husband should ask for a judgment against the woman for such maintenance sums paid to date.

There may be other means of getting to the issue other than a motion for modification of the support order, such as a motion for reconsideration or if timely, an appeal from that order. The obligor under the order needs to seek professional advice.

What he may think was and is adequate proof of cohabitation triggering Section 8.056(b) may differ from the opinion of his attorney. It certainly seems to have differed from the opinion of the family court judge.

Also, it is not beyond all probabilities that the award was in part compensation to adjust marital property division or for some other purpose.

Anyway the guy needs to talk to a Texas lawyer experienced in practicing Texas family law. (Which I suspect will be for the first time or he wouldn't be in this fix.)

 

[latigo]

It sounds like your attorney did not negotiate any terms into the order. As you stated, it is signed and over now.

Again you have illustrated your lack of training and instruction in this discipline.

To begin it is not a normal function of a trial lawyer to negotiate with the court the terms of a court order.

Secondly, it ain’t over!

If you had a smidgen of knowledge about the practice of law, it is conceivable that you might be aware that family court support orders, per se, like issues relating to minor children, ARE NEVER FINAL!

Such orders are not res judicata! Jurisdiction is retained! And in Texas jurisdiction to modify and/or terminate a maintenance ward is retained by a specific statute, to-wit, Texas Family Code Section 8.507.

You really ought to spend more time writing down and running vehicle tags and less time misleading the users with your unschooled, off- the-wall guesswork. As here, where you have falsely stated that the obligor of the support order must abide with and live silently with the order throughout its duration.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Again you have exhibited a predisposition to sound authoritarian, while spouting incomplete info. The section you refer to is, 8.057. It allows him to go back and request an adjustmate. After a hearing, the court may modify an original or modified order or portion of a decree providing for maintenance on a
proper showing of a material and substantial change in circumstances of either party. However, 8.056. allows termination under these situations; (a) The obligation to pay future maintenance terminates on the death of either party or on the remarriage of the obligee.
(b) After a hearing, the court shall terminate the maintenance order if the obligee cohabits with another person in a permanent place of abode on a continuing, conjugal basis. As the judge had the information related to this already presented, he must have deemed proof insubstantial. As you stated it is not beyond all probabilities that the award was in part compensation to adjust marital property division or for some other purpose. Therefore, OP's lawyer appears to have failed to negotiate a favorable payment outcome. since it appears neither he nor his lawyer know why the judge chose to ignore the situation. Regardless, the entry was accepted. OP will not likely be permitted to refile to bite on the same apple he accepted in the original order.

 

[Doreen]

... family court support orders, per se, like issues relating to minor children, ARE NEVER FINAL!

Such orders are not res judicata! Jurisdiction is retained!...

This is not entirely correct. Although jurisdiction to modify such orders is retained, once the plenary period of the initial suit is over, the order is FINAL. And appealable within given time constraints.

Any modifications are subject to filing an original suit for modification of the existing order, and res judicata will apply to the issues previously litigated and disposed of. Any modification is not retroactive prior to the date of filing the suit for modification (Section 8.057(c)).

Texas121's opinion of what the court "knew" in the context of the admissible evidence and the pleadings and timely objections, and what the court should have done in this instance, is most likely incorrect.

In this instance, statutes 8.056 and 8.057 provide an opportunity to file a new suit for modification to terminate spousal support on the cohabitation clause. If that is in fact the case, and it can be sufficiently proven.