Mehmet Turan Erkan v. Habibe Nalan Erkan

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 20, 2015·No. 03-14-00148-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00148-CV 6584617 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/20/2015 2:30:03 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-14-00148-CV

FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/20/2015 2:30:03 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk MEHMET TURAN ERKAN, Appellant, v.

HABIBE NALAN ERKAN, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 201st Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-FM- 12-002773 The Honorable Stephen Yelenosky, Presiding Judge

APPELLANT’S 2nd AMENDED BRIEF AND APPENDIX

Jennifer L. Mathis Texas Bar No. 24081964 mathisjl@gmail.com 3603 Parkway Terrace Bryan, Texas 77802 (972) 822-6374 – Telephone (972) 692-5223 – Fax

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant tenders this list of all parties and counsel to the trial court’s

judgment to assist this court in determining qualification and recusal under Rule 38

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:

Appellant Mehmet Turan Erkan

Counsel in the Court of Appeals

Jennifer L. Mathis Texas Bar No. 24081964 3603 Parkway Terrace Bryan, Texas 77802

Trial Court – Pro Se

Appellee Habibe Nalan Erkan

Court of Appeals – Pro Se

Trial Court – Pro Se

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...............................................1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................6

ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................9

1. The trial court abused its discretion when it conditioned overnight possession on maintaining separate bedrooms for the children....................9

a. There is no evidence that the trial court’s deviation from the standard possession and access order was in the best interest of the children..........................................................................................10

b. The Amended Final Decree of Divorce exceeds the amount of restriction necessary, if any, to protect the children’s best interest .....................................................................................................15

c. The restriction is unclear and ambiguous and therefore not enforceable by contempt .........................................................................15

2. The trial court improperly admitted the only evidence supporting existence of two apartments in Turkey .......................................................17

a. Mr. Erkan properly objected to the admission of the emails..................17

b. Ms. Erkan’s Emails are inadmissible hearsay under the Texas rules of Evidence and she failed to identify any applicable exception...................................................................................................20

ii

c. The trial court’s admittance of the emails by Ms. Erkan resulted in an improper characterization and harm to Mr. Erkan ........................................................................................................21

3. The trial court erred in conveying foreign property as part of the division of the marital estate .......................................................................26

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................28

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................31

APPENDIX ..............................................................................................................32

Tab 1: Amended Final Decree of Divorce Tab 2: Emails from Ms. Erkan Tab 3: Tax returns of Mr. Erkan1 Tab 4: Letter from Mr. Erkan’s family2 Tab 5: Title Deeds3

1 The tax returns from 1999 and 2000 were not admitted at trial, but are included here.

2 The letter from Mr. Erkan’s family was not admitted at trial, but is included here.

3 The title deeds were not admitted at trial, but are included here.

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases

Acosta v. Soto, 394 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.) ..........................................12

Boothe v. Hausler, 766 S.W.2d 788 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) ...........................................................22

Brock v. Brock, 586 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1979, no writ) .................................24

Burk v. Turner, 15 S.W. 256 (Tex. 1891) ......................................................................................24

Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) ................................................................................10

City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995) ................................................................................22

Colden v. Alexander, 171 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. 1943).................................................................................23

Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977).................................................................................25

Estate of Wren v. Bestinelli, No. 06-09-00060-CV, 2010 WL 173828 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 20, 2010, pet denied) (mem. op.) ..................................................................19

Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) ..................................................................................9

Greenpeace, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 133 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied) .....................................27

GT & MC, Inc. v. Texas City Ref., Inc., 822 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) ................22

iv

Henning v. Welborn, 27 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) .......................................................26

Hilley v. Hilley, 342 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1961), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds, TEX. CONST. ART. XVI, § 15, as recognized in Holmes v. Beatty, 290 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009)........................................................................................21

Holloway v. Holloway, 671 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1983, writ dism'd) ......................................26

Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) ....................................................................................9

In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) ...............................................9

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) ..................................................................................17

In re M.P.B., 257 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) .............................................9

In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) ................................................................................12

In re Marriage of Murray, 15 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) .......................................22

In re Marriage of Swim, 291 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) .......................................12

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

Mehmet Turan Erkan v. Habibe Nalan Erkan, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Mehmet Turan Erkan v. Habibe Nalan Erkan (Mehmet Turan Erkan v. Habibe Nalan Erkan) — 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)
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Ramirez
159 S.W.3d 897 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Low v. Henry
221 S.W.3d 609 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik
267 S.W.3d 867 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Iliff v. Iliff
339 S.W.3d 74 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer
554 S.W.2d 137 (Texas Supreme Court, 1977)
Boothe v. Hausler
766 S.W.2d 788 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
Wells v. Sansing
245 S.W.2d 964 (Texas Supreme Court, 1952)
McElreath v. McElreath
345 S.W.2d 722 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Brock v. Brock
586 S.W.2d 927 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Roosth v. Roosth
889 S.W.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Worford v. Stamper
801 S.W.2d 108 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)
In Re Marriage of Swim
291 S.W.3d 500 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Woodworth v. Cortez
660 S.W.2d 561 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Leighton v. Leighton
921 S.W.2d 365 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
GT & MC, INC. v. Texas City Refining, Inc.
822 S.W.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Moroch v. Collins
174 S.W.3d 849 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
King v. Skelly
452 S.W.2d 691 (Texas Supreme Court, 1970)
Hilley v. Hilley
342 S.W.2d 565 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
McCraw v. Maris
828 S.W.2d 756 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)