Petitioner's Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Layfield v. Layfield, No. 09-93-102-CC, 1994 WL 29104 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1994, no writ)...................................................................................................34 Lee v. Lee, 112 Tex. 392, 247 S.W. 828 (1923) .....................................................................14 Lipsey v. Lipsey, 983 S.W.2d 345, 350 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)....................................................................................................................................35 Lohse v. Cheatham, 705 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1986, writ dism’d)............................................................................................................................27 Lone Star Cement Corp. v. Fair, 467 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1971)............................................26 Ex Parte Lucher, 728 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ)........................................................................................................................32 In re Marriage of Alford, 40 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, no pet.).........................................................................................................................21 In re Marriage of Rister, 512 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. Civ. App. – Amarillo 1975, no writ)..................................................................................................................14, 31 May v. May, 716 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1986, no writ) ....................................................................................................................11, 16, 34, 40 McGehee v. Epley, 661 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. 1983)....................................................................24 McPherren v. McPherren, 967 S.W.2d 485 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1998, no pet.)...................................................................................................................21, 24 Parliament v. Parliament, 860 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1993, writ denied) .................................................................................................................42 Pate v. Pate, 874 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) ............................................................................................................................23 Pelzig v. Berkebile, 931 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1996, no writ)....................................................................................................................7, 34 Pierce v. Pierce, 850 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993, writ denied)....................................................................................................................................24 R&P Enters. v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1980)......................................................................................................................................26 Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Spillars, 368 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 1963)...................................26 vii
Reiss v. Reiss, No. 01-0251, 40 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. filed)...........................................xii, 8, 11, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 40 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Corp., 982 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.)..........................................................26 Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).....................................................................................................................8, 12 State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams, 791 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1990, writ denied) .....................................................................................................26 Stephens v. Marlowe, 20 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2000, no pet.)....................................................................................................................................22 Taggert v. Taggert, 552 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. 1977) ............................15-16, 21, 34-37, 41-42 Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel, 243 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1951) ...............................26 Wilde v. Murchie, 949 S.W.2d 331 (Tex. 1997) ...........................................12, 25-27, 28, 32 Wilson v. Uzzel, 953 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1997, no pet.)....................11, 24, 40 Wright v. Eckhardt, 32 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.)..............................................................................................................................21, 33 Zoella v. Zoella, 15 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) ................................................................................................................33 DOCKETED CASES Shanks v. Shanks, No. 06-98-0078-CV (Tex. App. – Texarkana, Sept. 24, 1998, no pet.) ................................................................................................................... 3 STATE STATUTES AND SESSION LAWS TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17 .............................................................................................................17 TEX. CONST. art. XVI, §§ 15, 17 .....................................................................xii, 14, 17, 19, 26 TEX. CONST. of 1845, art. VII, § 19...........................................................................................19 Act of July 20, 1987, 70 th Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 50, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 159..........................................................................................................................................22 viii
Page 1 and 2: No. 00-1325 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 3 and 4: AMENDED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COU
Page 5 and 6: III. 2. The court of appeals relied
Page 7: County of Maverick v. Texas Ass’n
Page 11 and 12: VICTOR B. MEYEN & MARK W. DUNDEE, Q
Page 13 and 14: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Cour
Page 15 and 16: STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Divorce.
Page 17 and 18: one for the defined benefit plan an
Page 19 and 20: ARGUMENT I. Given the proliferation
Page 21 and 22: earnings less applicable plan expen
Page 23 and 24: Thus, unlike defined contributions
Page 25 and 26: C. To accurately segregate communit
Page 27 and 28: Sequence Marital Property Defined C
Page 29 and 30: e paid to the alternate payee “if
Page 31 and 32: Moreover, such cursory divestiture
Page 33 and 34: of section 9.007 as the basis for i
Page 35 and 36: §§ 9.001-.002. Courts were also g
Page 37 and 38: intended to apply this restriction
Page 39 and 40: Whether the decree is unambiguous i
Page 41 and 42: entirely from non-divorce judgments
Page 43 and 44: [Treadway]. It is further ORDERED t
Page 45 and 46: (court recognizing that accrued ben
Page 47 and 48: Decrees that appear unambiguous whe
Page 49 and 50: This formula preserves marital prop
Page 51 and 52: D. When divorce precedes retirement
Page 53 and 54: In the Marriage, Employment, Divorc
Page 55 and 56: plan participant approaches retirem
Page 57 and 58: PRAYER This Court should grant Shan
Page 59:
No. 00-1325 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
show all

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?