Introduction: A Property Dispute That Began in Divorce Court — and Ended in the Court of Appeals
What happens when a final divorce decree contains a property agreement, and years later, one party wants to know whether the other’s rights under that agreement are still valid? That question reached the Texas Court of Appeals in Waco earlier this year, in a case that produced an important ruling for anyone navigating post-divorce property disputes in Texas.
Per the published opinion, in In the Matter of the Marriage of L., 2026 WL 249018 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 29, 2026), the appellate court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a post-divorce declaratory judgment action, holding that a spouse seeking to clarify her contractual rights under a property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree was not impermissibly attacking the final judgment, she was enforcing a contract. The distinction matters enormously, and its implications extend to thousands of Dallas-area residents who finalized divorces with complex property agreements. If you are dealing with unresolved property issues from a prior divorce, speaking with a Dallas divorce attorney experienced in post-decree enforcement can be critical to protecting your rights.
Case Background: A Right of First Refusal, a 2014 Divorce Decree, and a 2023 Lawsuit
B.L. and C.L. divorced in 2014. Their final decree of divorce, entered in Bosque County, incorporated a property settlement agreement the parties had negotiated through an informal settlement process. The decree expressly stated that it represented a merger of that informal settlement, and that to the extent any differences existed between the informal agreement and the decree, the decree would control.
The property division was detailed. B.L. was awarded certain real property consisting of approximately 69.5 acres. C.L. was granted a right of first refusal to purchase that property before B.L. could offer it to any third party. The terms were specific: C.L. would have the right to purchase a 52-acre tract at $1,500 per acre, with the remaining acreage, including a house, priced at fair market value to be determined by a jointly agreed-upon realtor. Critically, the decree also provided that if C.L. chose to exercise his purchase right, he was required to buy both the 52-acre tract and the house simultaneously, he could not purchase one without the other.
Nearly a decade later, in 2023, B.L. filed a petition for declaratory judgment under Texas’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), Chapter 37 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. She sought a declaration that any right C.L. previously asserted to purchase the property was either invalid or had been waived. C.L. responded by filing special exceptions and a motion to dismiss, arguing that B.L.’s lawsuit was nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on the 2014 divorce decree, and that no viable declaratory judgment claim could exist. The trial court agreed with C.L. and dismissed B.L.’s suit with prejudice. B.L. appealed.
Legal Analysis: The Thin but Critical Line Between Attacking a Judgment and Enforcing a Contract
The Collateral Attack Problem in Texas Divorce Law
The trial court’s dismissal rested on a well-established principle in Texas law: collateral attacks on final judgments are generally not permitted. As the Texas Supreme Court explained in B. v. P., 165 S.W.3d 336, 345 (Tex. 2005), it is the policy of Texas courts to give finality to judgments. A “collateral attack” is any attempt to avoid the binding force of a judgment in a proceeding that was not instituted for the purpose of correcting, modifying, or vacating it, but rather to obtain relief that the judgment currently bars. Under this doctrine, Texas courts have consistently rejected the use of declaratory judgment actions to attack, modify, or reinterpret prior divorce decrees. See, e.g., S. v. S., 649 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1983); Cohen v. Cohen, 632 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.—Waco 1982, no writ).
The trial court viewed B.L.’s action through this lens, as an effort to undermine the 2014 decree by declaring C.L.’s rights invalid, and dismissed accordingly.
Why the Waco Court of Appeals Disagreed
The appellate court reversed by applying a different, and equally well-established, principle: a marital property agreement incorporated into a divorce decree is treated as a contract, governed by contract law, not the law of judgments. This comes directly from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in A. v. A., 717 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Tex. 1986), a foundational case in Texas family law.
Under A. and its progeny, a post-divorce action brought to enforce or construe the contractual terms of a property settlement agreement, even one incorporated into a final decree, falls within a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, as long as the action seeks to clarify contractual rights rather than change the underlying agreement. The Waco court cited a line of consistent Texas appellate authority supporting this rule: D. v. M., 2020 WL 4758429 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 18, 2020, no pet.); C. v. M., 287 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.); and B. v. R., 709 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1986, no writ).
How the Court Applied the Distinction Here
The critical analytical move was in how the court characterized B.L.’s petition. B.L. did not allege that the 2014 decree was erroneous when signed. She did not seek to change the terms of C.L.’s right of first refusal, reduce his acreage entitlement, or alter the pricing formula. Instead, construing her amended petition liberally — as required under Texas jurisdictional pleading standards — the court found that she was seeking to clarify the parties’ respective rights under what functioned as an option contract / right of first refusal embedded in the property settlement agreement, in order to determine whether C.L. had complied with or waived those rights.
That is contract interpretation, not judgment modification. The court held that the trial court therefore had subject-matter jurisdiction over B.L.’s declaratory judgment action and erred in dismissing it.
The Family Code Framework and Its Limits
The court also navigated the Family Code’s concurrent enforcement framework. Under Texas Family Code §§ 9.002 and 9.008, the court that rendered a final divorce decree retains continuing jurisdiction to clarify and enforce its property division. However, § 9.007(a) expressly prohibits courts from amending, modifying, or changing the substantive property division previously approved, enforcement orders may only assist in implementation or clarify prior orders. This limitation reinforces why framing post-divorce property actions correctly, as contract enforcement rather than decree modification, is so important when seeking court relief. A knowledgeable Dallas family law attorney can help you navigate this distinction precisely.
Practical Implications: Rights of First Refusal and Option Contracts in Divorce Decrees
This case highlights how rights of first refusal and purchase options embedded in divorce decrees are among the most legally complex provisions to draft and later enforce. They blend real property law, contract interpretation, and family law in ways that can create genuine disputes even decades after a decree is signed. Questions about pricing mechanisms, triggering conditions, waiver, and whether the right remains viable after changed circumstances all require careful legal analysis, and, as this case demonstrates, potentially further litigation.
Key Takeaways for Dallas-Area Residents
The L. decision clarifies an important jurisdictional principle for anyone dealing with post-divorce property disputes in Texas. If your final divorce decree contains a property settlement agreement, including rights of first refusal, purchase options, deferred property transfers, or other contractual provisions, those terms are enforceable as contracts, even years after the decree is entered. Challenging or clarifying those rights through a declaratory judgment action is legally permissible, as long as you are seeking contract interpretation rather than modification of the decree itself. This distinction can mean the difference between having your claims heard and having them dismissed entirely. Consulting with a Dallas divorce attorney before filing any post-divorce action is essential.
Strategic Insights: What This Case Teaches About Post-Divorce Property Planning
The L. litigation suggests several points worth reflecting on from a planning and strategic perspective. First, divorce decrees that incorporate rights of first refusal should include clear trigger provisions, waiver language, and timelines, ambiguity is what drives post-decree litigation. Second, when post-divorce property disputes arise, alternative approaches to seeking relief may include a breach of contract action or a Family Code enforcement proceeding rather than, or in addition to, a UDJA declaratory judgment action. Careful pleading of the correct legal theory from the outset can prevent dismissal at the threshold. An experienced Dallas divorce lawyer consultation can help you assess which avenue best fits your circumstances.
Related Legal Issues This Case May Affect
Cases involving complex property provisions in divorce decrees frequently intersect with other family law matters. If your divorce involved children, ongoing support obligations, or other financial arrangements, unresolved property disputes can affect the broader picture. The Law Office of Michael P. Granata handles the full spectrum of post-decree matters, including child custody modifications, child support, and property enforcement proceedings. Learn more about our firm’s approach by visiting the about page for Michael P. Granata.
Call to Action: Speak with a Trusted Dallas Family Law Attorney Today
If you are facing a post-divorce property dispute, questioning the enforceability of a right of first refusal or other contractual provision in your decree, or simply unsure whether your rights remain intact, the Law Office of Michael P. Granata is here to help. With more than 25 years of experience in Dallas family law, our firm provides honest assessments, strategic guidance, and transparent communication — not false promises. We serve clients throughout Dallas and the surrounding communities of Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville.
Whether you are searching for an experienced divorce lawyer in Dallas, need a Dallas family law attorney for a post-decree matter, or are simply looking for a divorce attorney near me who will give you a straight answer, we are ready to listen. Contact us today to schedule your confidential consultation and get the clarity you deserve.
