Castro v. Castro
Texas Court of Appeals
2013 WL 1928742 (2013)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Timothy Castro (defendant) and Margaret Castro (plaintiff) were married for over 30 years, and they subsequently divorced. The parties executed a divorce agreement, which the trial court approved and incorporated by reference into the divorce decree. Timothy was an anesthesiologist who worked for a partnership of which he was the president. Timothy had an annual income of $800,000. The agreement acknowledged the parties’ disparity of education, incomes, and earning capacities and stated that Timothy would consequently pay Margaret almost $18,500 per month as alimony. A portion of this monthly payment would expire if Margaret remarried, but most of it expired only upon Margaret’s death. The agreement secured Margaret’s right to payments by giving her a security interest in Timothy’s partnership interest. The agreement provided that Margaret’s right to payment was not to be discharged if Timothy filed for bankruptcy. After Timothy was suspended from work and forfeited his partnership interest, he stopped making the monthly payments to Margaret. The trial court granted Margaret’s motion to enforce the divorce decree and awarded Margaret over $1 million. Timothy appealed, arguing the case should have been brought under a breach-of-contract claim rather than through the divorce court to enforce the divorce decree. Timothy also argued that the contract was void for ambiguity and impossibility because the contract was based on his previous annual salary and he could no longer afford to pay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.