When couples sign marital property agreements intending to protect their assets and establish clear expectations, can those agreements inadvertently preserve reimbursement claims they never discussed? A recent Houston appellate decision answers this question with significant implications for Dallas-area couples navigating property division in a divorce, decided in August 2025, demonstrates how Texas courts distinguish between what spouses explicitly agree to and what rights remain unaddressed, particularly regarding reimbursement claims and contractual spousal maintenance obligations.
Per the published opinion, the case involved a couple married since 2006 who signed a post-nuptial marital property agreement in 2020, converting two properties into the wife’s separate property. However, the husband continued paying mortgages on those properties with community funds until divorce. The trial court ordered the wife’s separate estate to reimburse the community estate and reduced her contractual spousal maintenance to offset this reimbursement. The appellate court’s nuanced decision offers critical guidance on marital property agreements, reimbursement rights, and the enforceability of contractual maintenance provisions.
Background: A Marital Property Agreement and Its Consequences
A.M. and T.M. married in 2006 and built a life together in the Houston area, raising three children. On June 4, 2020, they executed a Marital Property Partition and Exchange Agreement that converted two properties, one in League City and one in Milam, Texas, into A.M.’s sole and separate property, effective immediately. Under the agreement’s terms, A.M. accepted sole responsibility for “all debt associated” with these properties, “including but not limited to all payments for principal, taxes, insurance, and homeowner’s association dues.”
Despite this clear allocation of responsibility, T.M. continued paying the mortgage and HOA dues on the League City property and the mortgage, insurance, and taxes on the Milam property from July 2020 until the divorce was finalized. These payments came from his community property income, funds that belonged to both spouses under Texas law until the divorce divided the community estate.
In 2022, the couple separated and T.M. filed for divorce in Galveston County. After a bench trial, the court granted the divorce and appointed both parents as joint managing conservators of their three children. Critically, the court both acknowledged and enforced the marital property agreement but divided all other property according to T.M.’s proposed division.
The trial court’s divorce decree ordered A.M.’s separate estate to reimburse the community estate for $161,899 in payments toward the League City property, $55,478 in payments toward the Milam property, $2,336 in arrears on the Milam property, and $5,786 in joint checks deposited to A.M.’s account. The court then ordered that this reimbursement obligation would be satisfied by reducing the total spousal maintenance T.M. had promised to pay A.M. in the agreement from $600,000 to $455,000. Additionally, the court imposed several termination conditions on the spousal maintenance obligation that were not mentioned in the original agreement.
The Legal Framework: Marital Property Agreements and Reimbursement
Understanding the appellate court’s analysis requires familiarity with how Texas law treats marital property agreements and reimbursement claims. These two areas of family law intersect in complex ways that significantly affect property division outcomes.
Marital Property Agreements in Texas
Texas law permits spouses to partition or exchange community property between themselves. To be valid, such agreements must be in writing. Courts interpret these agreements using standard contract principles, making the construction of unambiguous contracts a question of law reviewed de novo by appellate courts.
When construing marital property agreements, courts seek to ascertain the parties’ intent as expressed in the document itself, focusing on objective manifestations rather than unexpressed subjective intent. Every clause should be given effect, with terms receiving their plain, ordinary meaning unless the agreement shows they were intended differently. Importantly, courts construe marital property agreements narrowly in favor of the community estate, meaning any ambiguity is resolved to protect community property rights.
Reimbursement Claims in Texas Divorce
Reimbursement is an equitable right arising when funds or assets of one marital estate benefit another marital estate without the first estate receiving compensation. It is purely equitable, not available as a matter of law but within the trial court’s broad discretion. Texas Family Code Section 3.402 codified many common-law reimbursement claims, though not all grounds were codified, and the statute should not be read as exhaustive.
Under long-recognized Texas common law, a community marital estate is entitled to reimbursement when community funds are used to reduce the mortgage on a spouse’s separate property house. When community funds benefit a separate estate, trial courts generally abuse their discretion by refusing reimbursement to the community.
Critically for this case, Texas Family Code Section 3.410 addresses how marital property agreements affect reimbursement claims. That section provides that qualifying marital property agreements are “effective to waive, release, assign, or partition a claim for economic contribution, reimbursement, or both…unless the agreement provides otherwise.” This language clarifies that such agreements can waive reimbursement claims but does not automatically eliminate them simply by existing.
The Wife’s Arguments on Appeal
A.M. raised three issues on appeal, each challenging different aspects of the trial court’s final decree. Her first argument claimed the trial court erred in granting reimbursement to the community estate from her separate estate. She made two sub-arguments: first, that T.M. had paid the mortgages with “her half” of community property, so no reimbursement should be owed; and second, that by signing the marital property agreement, T.M. released all reimbursement claims as a matter of law under Section 3.410.
Her second issue challenged the reduction of her spousal maintenance below the $600,000 total agreed upon in the marital property agreement, arguing the court impermissibly altered the agreement’s terms. Her third issue focused on the trial court’s imposition of termination conditions for spousal maintenance, including death of either party, her remarriage, or cohabitation, that were not contemplated in the parties’ agreement.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
The Houston Court of Appeals addressed each issue systematically, providing guidance that extends well beyond this particular case.
Did the Agreement Release Reimbursement Claims?
The court first disposed of A.M.’s argument that T.M. had paid with “her half” of community property by noting this was an evidence-based challenge requiring reference to the reporter’s record. Because A.M. had requested only a partial reporter’s record without submitting a statement of issues to be presented on appeal, the court presumed the omitted portions would support the judgment on this factual question.
The court’s analysis of whether the marital property agreement released reimbursement claims proved more substantive and significant. A.M. directed the court to two provisions: one stating that if divorce occurred, community property would be divided equally “without regard to either party’s separate property, earning ability, fault in the break-up of the marriage or any other basis,” and another acknowledging that T.M. understood he was “permanently surrendering rights to income and property I would otherwise have under Texas law.”
The appellate court found these provisions insufficient to release reimbursement claims. Following the principle that to release a claim effectively, the releasing instrument must “mention” the claim, the court noted that neither provision mentioned, much less explicitly released, reimbursement claims of any estate. This reading aligned with persuasive decisions from other Texas appellate courts.
The court cited Pearce v. Pearce from the El Paso Court of Appeals, which held that a trust indenture not mentioning “reimbursement” could not be construed to bar such claims. More recently, Jimenez v. Jimenez from Houston’s First Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion, finding that even broad language waiving “any and all…right, title and interest” in the other spouse’s separate property did not waive reimbursement rights to the community estate when reimbursement was never mentioned.
In contrast, the court distinguished Stoker v. Stoker, where marital property agreement language explicitly provided that “any payment or contribution by one of us to satisfy the debts or otherwise benefit the separate estate of the other shall not give rise to a claim for reimbursement.” That clear, specific language was effective to waive reimbursement claims.
Critically, the court rejected A.M.’s argument that Section 3.410 automatically releases all reimbursement claims whenever spouses sign a marital property agreement. The court explained that Section 3.410 merely clarifies that compliant agreements can waive reimbursement claims to the same extent they could before the 2001 and 2009 statutory amendments. Nothing in the statute categorically waives all reimbursement claims simply because an agreement exists.
Adopting A.M.’s interpretation, the court reasoned, could create unjust results, such as when unsophisticated parties sign form agreements without legal counsel, inadvertently releasing reimbursement rights they never understood they were giving up. The court declined to read the agreement as “supplanting the entire body of spousal rights without a clear expression of that intent in the document itself.”
Additionally, the court noted that the community marital estate is distinct from the spouses’ separate estates. Even if the agreement could be construed as releasing reimbursement claims between the spouses’ separate estates, that would not release reimbursement claims on behalf of the community estate, which was the claim at issue here.
Was the Maintenance Reduction Proper?
A.M.’s second issue challenged the reduction of her spousal maintenance from $600,000 to $455,000 based on the reimbursement award. The court quickly disposed of this argument, explaining that the trial court did not rewrite the agreement’s terms but rather acknowledged them and granted T.M. an offset against the total maintenance owed.
Because reimbursement is equitable, courts must consider all facts and circumstances when determining what is fair and just. The court has broad discretion to consider offsetting factors when valuing reimbursement claims. Thus, crediting the reimbursement amount against T.M.’s maintenance obligation fell within the trial court’s discretionary authority to effect a just property division.
Were the Termination Conditions Proper?
A.M.’s third issue proved meritorious. The divorce decree imposed four conditions that would terminate T.M.’s spousal maintenance obligation: (1) payment of the reduced total of $455,000; (2) death of either party; (3) A.M.’s remarriage; or (4) further court orders, including a finding that A.M. was cohabiting with another person.
T.M. argued these conditions were proper under Texas Family Code Section 8.056, which provides that maintenance obligations terminate upon the obligee’s death or remarriage, and that courts shall order termination if the obligee cohabits with a romantic partner. However, the appellate court explained that Chapter 8 applies only to court-ordered maintenance, not contractually agreed spousal support obligations.
Texas law distinguishes between court-ordered awards under Chapter 8 and court-approved voluntary obligations under Chapter 7. Chapter 8’s enforcement provisions apply only to maintenance orders entered “on the authority” of Chapter 8. Absent express language indicating Chapter 8 governs a contractual maintenance provision, courts enforce such provisions under contract law, independent of Chapter 8.
The court found no indication that the parties intended Chapter 8 to govern their agreement. The agreement did not cite Chapter 8, and the spousal maintenance provisions were inconsistent with Chapter 8’s restrictions—for example, the agreed duration exceeded statutory limits in effect when the agreement was signed. The divorce decree omitted any findings relevant to Chapter 8’s applicability.
T.M. pointed to language stating the maintenance provision “is enforceable as spousal maintenance to the full extent permitted under the Texas Family Code and as a contract.” The court found this insufficient to express intent that Chapter 8 govern the terms, noting it merely stated the provision was enforceable both as maintenance (to whatever extent permitted) and as a contract.
The court agreed with decisions from other appellate courts, including Lee v. Lee and Ammann v. Ammann, holding that trial courts have no power under Chapter 8 to supply terms not agreed upon by parties when those parties have not expressed intent for Chapter 8 to apply. Because the agreement did not provide that A.M.’s remarriage or cohabitation would terminate T.M.’s obligations, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing these conditions.
The appellate court therefore modified the decree to delete the termination conditions related to death, remarriage, and cohabitation, affirming the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways for Dallas-Area Couples
The decision offers several critical lessons for individuals navigating property division and spousal support in Dallas divorces:
Marital Property Agreements Must Be Specific: Simply signing a marital property agreement does not automatically waive reimbursement claims or alter other legal rights. To release such claims effectively, the agreement must explicitly mention and address them. Generic language about surrendering rights is insufficient.
Community Estate Rights Are Distinct: Even provisions that might release claims between spouses’ separate estates do not necessarily release the community estate’s reimbursement rights. These are separate legal interests requiring separate consideration.
Contractual vs. Court-Ordered Maintenance: Spousal support provisions in marital property agreements are governed by contract law unless the parties clearly express intent for Family Code Chapter 8 to apply. This distinction affects what termination conditions apply and how modifications are handled.
Reimbursement Remains Equitable: Trial courts retain broad discretion to grant reimbursement claims and to offset those claims against other obligations. This flexibility allows courts to achieve overall fairness in property divisions.
Strategic Considerations in Marital Property Agreements
What we’ve learned from this case is the critical importance of precision in drafting marital property agreements. Different approaches might have included explicit language addressing reimbursement claims, either preserving or waiving them as the parties intended. For example, the agreement could have stated: “Any payment by either spouse toward debts on the other’s separate property after the effective date of this agreement shall not give rise to any claim for reimbursement by any marital estate.”
Alternative strategies could have addressed the payment obligations more comprehensively. Rather than simply allocating responsibility for certain debts to A.M., the agreement might have included provisions for what happens if T.M. makes payments toward those obligations—perhaps treating such payments as loans to be repaid, gifts not subject to reimbursement, or contributions toward an offset in other areas of property division.
For those working with a Dallas family law attorney, this case demonstrates the value of anticipating how agreements will interact with Texas’s complex property division framework. Experienced counsel can identify potential reimbursement scenarios and address them explicitly, preventing disputes like the this one.
Regarding spousal maintenance provisions, different preparation strategies might have included clear language about whether Family Code Chapter 8 should govern the maintenance terms or whether the parties intended a purely contractual obligation. If the parties wanted Chapter 8’s termination provisions to apply, the agreement could have stated: “The parties intend for this spousal maintenance obligation to be governed by and enforceable under Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, including all termination provisions set forth in that chapter.”
Protecting Your Rights in Complex Property Divisions
Property division in divorce becomes exponentially more complex when couples have executed marital property agreements, own multiple properties with different characterizations, or have made payments benefiting various estates. The decision illustrates how seemingly straightforward agreements can leave significant issues unresolved, creating litigation that might have been avoided with more comprehensive drafting.
At our Dallas family law practice, we bring over 25 years of experience handling complex property divisions involving marital property agreements, reimbursement claims, and the intersection of contractual and statutory rights. We serve clients throughout the Dallas metropolitan area, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville.
We understand that property division affects your financial security for years to come. Whether you’re considering a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement, facing divorce with an existing marital property agreement, or dealing with reimbursement claims and complex asset characterization issues, we provide honest assessments grounded in realistic expectations based on current Texas law.
If you’re contemplating a marital property agreement, are in the midst of divorce proceedings involving such an agreement, or need to understand your reimbursement rights, we invite you to schedule a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances. Our experienced team can evaluate your situation, explain relevant legal standards, and develop a strategic approach tailored to protecting your property interests.
Don’t navigate the complexities of Texas marital property law alone. Contact us today to learn more about how our comprehensive divorce services can help you achieve fair outcomes in your property division. For a Dallas divorce attorney consultation, call our office or visit our contact page to begin the conversation about protecting your financial future. Learn more about our approach to family law and how we can help you navigate property division with both strategic precision and compassionate support. Whether you need guidance on spousal support matters or comprehensive property division advocacy, we’re here to provide the experienced representation you deserve.
