Charles Mandeville v. Deborah Mandeville

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 17, 2015·No. 01-15-00119-CV·Published

Opinion

I FILED IN 1ST COURT OFAPPEALS f HOUSTON. TEXAS

ORIGINAL APR'7 » CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

NO. 01-15-00119

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS FIRST DISTRICT

CHARLES MANDEVILLE, V Appellant

vs.

DEBORAH MANDEVILLE Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE 387™ DISTRICT COURT

April 2015 Charles Mandeville, V 1323 Sunset Lane Guymon, OK 73942 (505)417-9933 Appellant Pro Se PARTIES

Charles Mandeville, V 1323 Sunset Lane Guymon, OK 73942 (Pro Se)

Deborah Mandeville (Crowley), represented by: Vicki L. Pinak Pinak Law Firm, PLLC 12946 S. Dairy Ashford Road, Ste. 400 Sugar Land, TX 77478 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 1

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 2

RELEVANTFACTS 2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 5

ARGUMENT 7

1. The District Court Abused Its Discretion By Excluding A Post-Martial Separate Property Agreement From the Jury Where The Exclusion Was The Result of An Unnoticed Discovery Motion That Was Not Made Until The Eve of Trial, And The Issues Within The Motion Were Being Raised For The First Time. 7

2. The District Court Abused Its Authority By Imposing On Appellant Supervised- Only Visitation For Seeing Any Of His Children When No Such Request Was Even Made In Any Pleading, And No Grounds At All Were Stated For Seeking Any Deviation From The Standard Possession Order. 12

CONCLUSION 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Boateng v. Trailblazer Health Enters,, L.L.C., 171 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist] 2005 7

Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1975) 10

Fanning v. Fanning, 828 S.W.2d 135 (1992) 8

Goetz v. Goetz, 534 S.W.2d 716 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1976) 10

ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a divorce case that was initiated January 17,2014 by appellee Deborah

Mandeville (Crowley). (CR 8)1 After Appellant Charles Mandeville Answered the

petition, he filed a counter-petition for divorce March 21,2014 which demanded a

jury trial. (CR 30). After Answering the counter-petition, Appellee Deborah

submitted a Second Amended divorce petition in August 2014. (CR 123). After

entry of several interim and temporary orders, the case was set for trial and tried by a

jury October 22,2014. (CR 321 - 327). A final decree of divorce was entered

November 12,2014. (CR 377). Appellant filed a Motion for New Trial December

12,2014. (CR443).2 Whennoaction was taken on the motion, the notice of appeal

was filed February 10,2015, within the 60 day period allowed from the new trial

motion filing date. (CR515).

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant believes all issues will be sufficiently set forth in the briefs, and no

oral argument may be necessary.

i < CR' refers to the Clerk's Record and page number.

2The clerk's record incorrectly shows a date of December 24, 2014. Appellant has previously submitted a letter requesting correction of the incorrect date.

1 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Did The District Court Abuse Its Discretion By Excluding A Separate Property Agreement From the Jury As a Result of An Unnoticed Discovery Motion (Disguised Inside a Motion in Limine) That Was Not Made Until The Eve of Trial, And The Issues Within The Discovery Motion Were Being Raised For The First Time?

2. Did The District Court Err In Deviating From The Standard Possession Order And Imposing On Appellant Supervised-Only Visitation For Seeing Any Of His Children When No Such Request Was Even Made In Any Pleading, And No Grounds Were Stated At All For Making Any Deviation?

RELEVANT FACTS

The parties to this case were married in New Mexico in June 2000. (CR 9 and

30). On June 25, 2001, and while still in New Mexico, they executed an agreement

that transmuted community property to separate property under New Mexico law.

(CR 30). The document expressly states that each spouse "divests [him or her] from

any right, interest, or claim [each] may have in, or to, any community property",

including wages and income of any sort 'that was acquired by the parties own labor

and/or initiative' at least from the date of execution and forward. This document was

recorded in the Socorro County, New Mexico records on July 20, 2001. (Id). Prior

to this divorce proceeding, no attempt was ever made by either party to alter/amend

this document. [No such claim in appellee's responses to counter-petition].3

The parties eventually moved away from New Mexico, and were living in Illinois (a non-community property state). In February 2013 appellant moved to Oklahoma for a job, and expected his then-wife to join him after the school year was over for the children. (continued...) Appellee Charles filed a counter-petition in response to the initial Petition

filed. The counter-petition alleged the existence of, and provided a copy of, the

separate property agreement. (CR 30). In response to the counter-petition, Deborah

submitted a 'Supplemental Amended Answer' alleging denial of a valid separate

property agreement, fraud in the inducement, unconscionableness, lack of fair and

reasonable disclosure, vagueness, and breach of the agreement by Charles. (CR

184). The trial court never considered or ruled on any of the separate property

agreement issues. And (for reasons described below) although the jury was never

allowed to see the agreement, it was nonetheless asked whether appellant Charles

had committed the sort of fraud alleged in the 'Supplemental Amended Answer'. It

ultimately answered 'no'. (CR 358-360).

At a pre-trial conference just prior to the trial starting, for the first time ever,

appellee's counsel handed appellant a 'motion in limine'. (CR 319). Among other

things in this last minute surprise was an unnoticed motion concerning vaguely

described discovery issues. It sought exclusion of specific items of evidence, which

included the 13 year old separateproperty agreement that had been executed by the

parties. (CR 319) Although this portion of the motion did not even complywith the

3(...continued) Since then, appellant's domicile has been in Oklahoma. He has not been a resident of, and has had nothing to do with Texas. It was only after appellee Deborah fled to Texas from Illinois that she began this divorce proceeding. general Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or the trial court's own local rules regarding

discovery disputes,4 the trial court considered and granted the motion anyway,

excluding the 13 year old agreement from the jury. (CR 337).

Other than appellant's retirement accounts, the sole property at issue was

personal property already held in the respective party's possession, and separate

personal bank accounts. There was no real estate, no investments, and no joint

accounts of any sort. The existence of de facto separate property was also reflected

in the trial court's own ultimate 'Division of Martial Estate' portion of the Final

Decree of Divorce. (See CR 377). The only meaningful property change that

occurred was appellee Deborah being awarded 100% of appellant's retirement

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Charles Mandeville v. Deborah Mandeville, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Charles Mandeville v. Deborah Mandeville (Charles Mandeville v. Deborah Mandeville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rudisell v. Paquette
89 S.W.3d 233 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Mandell v. Mandell
214 S.W.3d 682 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Prause v. Wilder
820 S.W.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Williams v. Williams
720 S.W.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell
811 S.W.2d 913 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)
Fanning v. Fanning
828 S.W.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Cockerham v. Cockerham
527 S.W.2d 162 (Texas Supreme Court, 1975)
Goetz v. Goetz
534 S.W.2d 716 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Boateng v. Trailblazer Health Enterprises, L.L.C.
171 S.W.3d 481 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)