Transfer During Divorce Proven Void

Section 6.707 of the Texas Family Code prohibits transfers of community divorce while a divorce case is pending. Such as transfer is void if the spouse making it intended to injure the rights of the other spouse. But if the transferee did not have notice of the intent to injure the other spouse’s rights, the transfer is not void. The other spouse has the burden of proving that the transferee did have notice of intent to injure the other spouse’s rights.

void property transfers

Transfer of Home to Daughters

In Henry v. Henry, No. 03-11-00253-CV (Tex. App. – Austin Apr. 18, 2014) (mem. op.), the Austin Court of Appeals applied this section when a husband transferred the parties’ home to his daughters. The trial court found the transfer to be void, but the husband argued that his daughters had no notice that he intended to injure his wife’s rights by making the transfer.

Facts Showing Void Transfer

The court noted these facts as support the trial court’s finding that the daughters were on notice of the husband’s intent to injure his wife’s rights by making the transfer:

  • Without telling the wife, the husband and the daughters made delinquent property tax payments on the home.
  • Although the husband claimed that he “registered the home as a church,” he did not give the Tax Appraisal District that information because the wife still lived in the home.
  • The husband and one of his daughters, who was a minister, planned to use the home as a church once the wife no longer lived there.

Finding of Void Transfer Affirmed

The court of appeals concluded that this evidence showed an intent to injure the wife’s property rights because the evidence

tends to show that [Husband] and his daughter talked about their plans for the house to function as a church, to the exclusion of [Wife’s] right to continue occupying it as her home. The evidence further shows that [Husband’s] daughters never took possession of the property that they purportedly owned.

Based on these facts, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *