Schlueter v. Schlueter

Richard Schlueter (plaintiff) and Karen Schlueter (defendant) were married. Richard invested in an emu business and, shortly before he filed for divorce from Karen, sold his interest in the business to his father, Hudson Schlueter, for much less than the business was worth. A week before Richard filed for divorce, Richard also gave Hudson a $30,360.41 check Richard had received to incentivize Richard’s early retirement. Hudson then wrote himself a check for $12,565, allegedly to reimburse himself for loans made to Richard. After Richard filed for divorce, Karen counterclaimed for divorce and brought independent claims against Richard and Hudson for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Karen claimed that Richard and Hudson’s actions deprived the community estate of assets. Karen did not claim that she was deprived of her separate property. The fraud and conspiracy claims were heard by a jury in a bifurcated trial. First, the jury awarded Karen $12,850 to compensate the community for Richard and Hudson’s fraudulent actions and $35,000 to compensate the community for the conspiracy. The jury also awarded $50,000 from Richard and $15,000 from Hudson in exemplary damages. When the trial court subsequently heard the divorce action and divided the community assets, it ordered Richard and Hudson to pay $12,850 to the community estate. The court also awarded Karen $30,000 from Richard and $15,000 from Hudson in exemplary damages. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that a spouse may bring an independent tort claim against the other spouse because the doctrine of interspousal immunity had previously been abrogated in Texas. Richard appealed.