Opinion
01-21-00411-CV
06-21-2022
ELIZABETH A. SHERIDAN, Appellant v. JOSEPH W. LEBLANC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20-CV-237
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Peter Kelly Justice
Elizabeth Sheridan appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing her case for want of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Background
On December 22, 2017, Elizabeth Sheridan (formerly LeBlanc) and Joseph LeBlanc obtained an Agreed Final Divorce Decree in the 507th District Court of Harris County (the "Harris County court"). In relevant part, the decree divided their debts such that Elizabeth was responsible for all debts incurred solely in her name and Joseph was responsible for all debts incurred solely in his name. Among other property, the decree awarded Elizabeth a 2016 JCW Mini Cooper and a 2012 Mini Cooper. The decree awarded Joseph a Mahindra USA tractor and other properties.
In 2020, Elizabeth filed suit against Joseph in the 405th District Court in Galveston County (the "Galveston court"). She alleged a breach of contract claim. Her suit alleges that the parties agreed to a division of their debts during their separation prior to their divorce. She alleges that the agreement is memorialized in an unsigned, undated spreadsheet. According to Elizabeth, both parties anticipated that the spreadsheet would become part of their divorce agreement. Elizabeth argues that the spreadsheet is a contract ratified by the parties' actions. She claims that Joseph breached the contract by failing to transfer title of a vehicle, failing to remove Elizabeth from certain accounts, and failing to make payments on those accounts.
Joseph moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment. In his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Joseph argued that the Galveston court lacks jurisdiction to modify, enforce, or clarify the final divorce decree entered by the Harris County court. In his motion for summary judgment, he again argued that the Galveston court lacked jurisdiction. He also argued that Elizabeth's contract claim fails as a matter of law because the spreadsheet is not a valid contract.
The Galveston court granted Joseph's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and held that it did not have jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree. Elizabeth appeals.
Jurisdiction
In her sole issue on appeal, Elizabeth argues that the Galveston court erred by dismissing her suit for lack of jurisdiction. Elizabeth argues that her breach of contract claim need not be brought in the court where the divorce decree was entered. Joseph argues that the Harris County court retains jurisdiction to enforce and clarify the decree. We hold that the Galveston court did not err by dismissing Elizabeth's suit.
A. Standard of Review
Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993). The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts affirmatively showing that the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 446. Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Tex. Dept. of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a challenge to its jurisdiction, we consider the plaintiff's pleadings and factual assertions, as well as any evidence in the record that is relevant to the jurisdictional issue. City of Elsa v. Gonzalez, 325 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Tex. 2010).
B. Analysis
A judgment finalizing a divorce and dividing marital property bars relitigation. Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361, 364 (Tex. 2011); Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003). The court that rendered the decree of divorce retains the power to enforce the property division, including any contractual provisions under the terms of the agreement incident to divorce. Tex. Fam. Code § 9.002. On request of a party or on the court's own motion the court may enter a clarification order. Id. § 9.008; see also id. § 9.007 (limiting power to modify or change property division).
The parties do not dispute that the divorce decree was entered by the 507th District Court in Harris County. The decree stated that Elizabeth was responsible for "all debts, credit cards, charges, liabilities, and other obligations incurred solely" in her name. Likewise, Joseph was responsible for "all debts, credit cards, charges, liabilities, and other obligations incurred solely" in his name. The decree also awarded Elizabeth two Mini Cooper vehicles. In her petition, Elizabeth asks the Galveston court to rule that the parties agreed to be responsible for a different allocation of debts, as shown in an attached spreadsheet.
The trial court did not err by dismissing Elizabeth's suit for lack of jurisdiction. Elizabeth seeks to relitigate the property division of the divorce. The Galveston court did not enter the divorce decree, and therefore, it does not have jurisdiction to modify, clarify, or enforce it. See Pearson, 322 S.W.3d at 364; see also Tex. Fam. Code § 9.002.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.