Maribel Hill v. Dwight L. Hill

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 21, 2025·No. 15-25-00051-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00051-cv

FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/21/2025 6:22 PM

NO. 15-25-00051-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK

FILED IN

15th COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

In The Court of Appeals 15th Judicial District of8/21/2025 Texas 6:22:20 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Austin, Texas Clerk Originating out of the Court of Appeals 5th Judicial District, Dallas, Texas

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.H., A CHILD MARIBEL L. HILL, APPELLANT Respondent Below

Vs.

DWIGHT L. HILL, APPELLEE

PETITIONER BELOW

Appeal of Judgment in Cause No. DF-22-14398 From the 302 nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Honorable Sandra Jackson, Presiding Judge

APPELLANT MARIBEL L. HILL'S ORIGINAL BRIEF ON APPEAL

Respectfully submitted,

ls/Marisol Lopez

Marisol Lopez State Bar No. 24050952 301 W. Avenue D Garland, Texas 75040 972-205-1110 (phone) 1-866-232-2077 (facsimile) Marisol@lawyerforu.com

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: Maribel L. Hill

TRIALANDAPPELLANT COUNSEL: Marisol Lopez Lopez Law Firm State Bar No. 24050952 301 W. Avenue D Garland, Texas 75040 972-205-1110 (phone) 1-866-232-2077 (facsimile) marisol@lawyerforu.com

APPELLEE/PETITIONER: Dwight L. Hill

TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL: ORSINGER, NELSON, DOWNING & ANDERSON, LLP Richard R. Osinger State Bar NO. 15322500 425 Soledad, Suite 550 San Antonio, Texas 78205 210-225-5567 richard@ondafamilylaw.com

EPSTEIN FAMIL LAW, PC 5949 Sherry Lane, Ste 1070 Dallas, Texas 75225 Robert D. Epstein State Bar NO. 24065206 robert@epsteinpc.com Jordan C. Watson State Bar NO. 24110895 j ordan@epsteinpc.com 214-692-8200

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................................... .i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................... .iv

STATEMENT OF THE RECORD ......................................................... vi

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................... vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................ vii

ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................................... viii

APPEND IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................................... 2

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................... 2

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DIVESTING RESPONDENT'S COMPLETE INTEREST IN DHIA THEREBY CREATING AN UNEQUAL DIVISION OF THE MARITAL ESTATE . . . . . . . ................................................. .5

A. THE MARITAL ESTATE OVERALL ........................... 5

B. DWIGHT HILL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC ............... 10

1. EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE COURT ................ 24

C. UNEQUAL DIVISION OF MARITAL ESTATE CAN EASILY BE REMEDIED ...................................... ... .29

ii

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, MISAPPLIED THE LAW AND ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN REDUCING THE VALUE OF RESPONDENT'S EXTENDED TERMINTION PAYMENTS (RETIREMENT BENEFITS) WHEN A CLEAR VALUE EXISTED AT THE TIME OF DIVORCE .......................... 31

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DENYING SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE .................................. 36

IV. FOLLOWING A BENCH TRIAL, RESPONDENT TIMELY FILED HER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND HER NOTICE OF PAST DUE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. DESPITE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO, THE TRIAL COURT NEVER MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW........................................ 42 V. PRAYER .............................................................................. 44

CERTIFICATEOF COMPLIANCE..................................................... .45

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE............................................................ .46

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

A.S. v. Texas Dep 1 of Fam. & Protective Servs., 665 S.W.3d 786, 795 (Tex. App.-Austin 2023, no pet.) ........................................................... .4

Berryv. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 945,947 (Tex.1983)......................... 21,32,33,35

Boydv. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004) ........................... .3

Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex.2004).............................. .3,4

Cherne Indus., Inc. V.Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989).......... 43,44

Craigv. Craig, 31 Tex. 203,204 (1868) ................................................. 22

Espe, 2021 WL 2021137, at *2 .......................................................... .3,4

Evaristo Gabriel Vazquez V.Jessica Lynn Bailey, No. 03-22-00290-CV at *3 {Tex.App. Apr 25, 2024, no pet.) ......................................................... 3,4

Hancock v. Hancock, No. 2-06-376-CV {Tex.App. 7/31/2007, No. 2-06-376-CV (Tex. App. Jul 31, 2008) ........................................... 28,29

Landerman v. State Bar of Texas, 247 S.W.3d 426, 430 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2008, pet denied).................................................................................... 44

Murf v. Murf, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981)........................................................................................ 3,31

In re C.A.S., 405 S.W.3d 373,384 (Tex.App. -Dallas 2013, no pet.) .................. .4

Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W. 2d 29, 30 {Tex. 1996)....................................... 44

Sharma vs. Routh, 302 S.W. 3d 355, 360 (Tex.App.-Houston, [14th District] 2009, no petition) ......................................................................... 5, 23

WarrenBaker, JR and Dorris J. Baker vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

iv

No. 02-3262 *5 US Court of Appeals (2003) ....................................... 11, 28

In the Matter of William C. Wade and Frances Carol Wade, 923 S.W.2d 735 (1996) .................................................................................. 12,32,33

Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.w.3d 582, 588 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, pet. Denied)... .4

STATUTES Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001 (Vernon 2006) .................................................... 3

Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051. (Vernon 2006) ......................................... 36,41,42

Tex. Fam. Code § 8.052 (Vernon 2006) ......................................... .36,41,42

Tex. Fam. Code § 8.053 (Vernon 2006) .......................................... .36,41,42

Tex. Fam. Code § 8.054 (Vernon 2006) ...................................... .36,41,42,43

RULES Tex. R. Civ. P. 297 ........................................................................... 44

Tex. R. Civ. P. 298 ........................................................................... 44

V

STATEMENTOF THE RECORD

The Clerk's Record:

CR P. X = OEC (clerks first record submitted) SCR P. X = Supplemental Court Record

The Reporter's Record:

TRV2 P. X, Lines X = Volume 2 Trial on the Merits/Exhibits TRV3 P. X, Lines X = Volume 3 Trial on the Merits/Exhibits ME P. X, Lines X = Motion to Enter SME P. X, Lines X = Supplemental Motion to Enter SRSM P. X, Lines X = Supplemental Record Spousal Maintenance

EX X = main exhibits pulled from record due to large volume of trial exhibits

Respondent is Appellant - wife/mother

Petitioner is Appellee - husband/father.

STATEMENTREGARDINGORALARGUMENT

The Court should grant oral argument because it would give the Court a

more complete understanding of the facts presented by her case, and although this

is not a terribly complicated case, oral argument would allow the Court to better

analyze the legal issues presented by appeal.

vi

STATEMENTOF THE CASE

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

Maribel Hill v. Dwight L. Hill, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Maribel Hill v. Dwight L. Hill (Maribel Hill v. Dwight L. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cire v. Cummings
134 S.W.3d 835 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Matter of Marriage of Wade
923 S.W.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Berry v. Berry
647 S.W.2d 945 (Texas Supreme Court, 1983)
Landerman v. State Bar of Texas
247 S.W.3d 426 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Boyd v. Boyd
131 S.W.3d 605 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Sharma v. Routh
302 S.W.3d 355 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Tenery v. Tenery
932 S.W.2d 29 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Murff v. Murff
615 S.W.2d 696 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Cherne Industries, Inc. v. Magallanes
763 S.W.2d 768 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF C.A.S. AND D.P.S.
405 S.W.3d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Craig v. Craig
31 Tex. 203 (Texas Supreme Court, 1868)