When a marriage of nearly 35 years ends due to infidelity and cruelty, how do Texas courts determine appropriate spousal support? A recent appellate decision from the Texarkana Court of Appeals provides crucial guidance on spousal maintenance awards, particularly when one spouse’s mental health has been severely impacted by the other’s misconduct. For Dallas-area residents considering divorce after long-term marriages, Matter of Marriage of W. offers important lessons about how Texas courts evaluate maintenance claims and what evidence matters most when seeking financial support post-divorce.
Per the published opinion, the case involved a wife who had dedicated decades to supporting her husband’s real estate business without receiving a salary, only to discover his lengthy pattern of adultery and deception. After the husband’s confession triggered severe mental health consequences, the wife sought spousal maintenance. The trial court awarded her $2,500 monthly for eight years, and the appellate court affirmed this decision, providing valuable insights into how Texas courts approach these difficult cases.
A Marriage Built on Deception
A.W. and G.W. married in 1988 and built what appeared to be a successful life together in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. G.W. worked as a self-employed real estate broker for 27 years and served as an ordained Baptist minister. A.W. had been a teacher but stopped working outside the home in 1991 to homeschool their children. She later worked as an Edward Jones financial assistant until 2012, after which she devoted herself full-time to supporting the couple’s real estate business without receiving any salary.
The evidence at trial painted a picture of A.W. providing approximately 70% of the labor in their real estate business, handling all paperwork and accounting since 2012, often working long hours into the night. Meanwhile, G.W. would leave early to relax in the hot tub. Despite her substantial contributions, all income from the business was reported under G.W.’s Social Security number, meaning his projected retirement benefits ranged from $1,999 to $3,961 monthly, while A.W.’s projected benefits were only $489 to $862 monthly.
In February 2023, after allegedly receiving religious absolution, G.W. confessed to A.W. about decades of adultery, including homosexual encounters primarily between 2008 and 2016, additional incidents from 1996 to 2005, and “happy ending massages” from 2017 to 2021. G.W. had even written a book detailing his “addiction to pornography and adultery, including with teenage boys while [he was] a youth pastor.” He had also transmitted a sexually transmitted disease to A.W., continuing sexual relations even while experiencing symptoms.
The confession devastated A.W., who had faithfully served her husband throughout their marriage despite his controlling behavior, verbal abuse, and physical aggression. She left the marital home in March 2023 and moved in temporarily with her daughter and son-in-law. In July, G.W. sent an email to A.W. and their daughters apologizing for treating her “like a servant” or “slave,” for his “ugly words and temper and anger,” and for pushing her. Despite his apologies, G.W. continued sending A.W. hundreds of emails and text messages against her wishes, 252 emails and 260 texts between March 2023 and trial.
The Trial and Property Division
A.W. filed for divorce in Wise County in September 2023, citing adultery and cruelty as grounds. She sought a disproportionate share of the marital estate and spousal maintenance. The parties agreed to sell their marital home and four rental properties, with proceeds to be divided, but disagreed on the percentage split. They also agreed that G.W. would keep the TexasRealEstateSavings.com business.
The trial included testimony from Dr. W. R., a licensed professional counselor and associate professor at Liberty University’s Department of Clinical Mental Health Counseling. Dr. R. diagnosed A.W. with post-traumatic stress disorder with complex trauma and major depressive disorder following G.W.’s disclosure. She testified that A.W. suffered from intrusive thoughts, sleep deprivation, nightmares, difficulty concentrating, and an inability to perform daily tasks that were previously easy for her.
According to Dr. R.’s expert opinion, returning to work in the real estate industry would be “extremely difficult” for A.W. because such work constituted a “primary trigger” for her trauma. Dr. R. explained that it would be “very challenging” for A.W. to work “due to her age with the complex trauma” and noted that A.W. was “not physically capable” of working. When asked when A.W. might be fit to work, Dr. R. replied, “I do not have enough information at this time to give a conclusion.”
The couple’s son-in-law testified that A.W., once “intelligent and capable,” could no longer perform simple tasks that would have been easy before. She experienced extreme anxiety and panic attacks from situations that would not normally be major issues. Tasks like creating Excel spreadsheets, which she had previously excelled at, were now impossible for her.
The financial evidence showed substantial marital income. The couple’s tax returns reflected adjusted gross income of $367,438 in 2021, $257,209 in 2022, and $179,192 in 2023. In self-employment income alone, they reported net profits of $362,074 for 2021, $252,486 for 2022, and $170,851 for 2023.
The trial court granted the divorce based on adultery and cruelty and awarded A.W. 65% of the community property. This included 65% of the net proceeds from selling the marital residence and four rental properties (after paying mortgages totaling $427,780.47), 65% of bank account balances totaling over $140,000, and 65% of retirement accounts. The court also ordered G.W. to pay A.W. $2,500 monthly in spousal maintenance for eight years.
Legal Framework for Spousal Maintenance in Texas
Understanding the appellate court’s analysis requires familiarity with Texas spousal maintenance law. Unlike some states, Texas takes a restrictive approach to spousal support, viewing it as temporary and rehabilitative rather than permanent. For those working with a Dallas divorce attorney, knowing these statutory requirements is essential.
Under Texas Family Code Section 8.051, a court may order maintenance only if the spouse seeking support will lack sufficient property (including separate property) to provide for minimum reasonable needs AND meets specific qualifying conditions. For marriages lasting 10 years or longer, the spouse must also lack the ability to earn sufficient income to meet minimum reasonable needs.
However, Section 8.053(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that maintenance is not warranted unless the requesting spouse has exercised diligence in either earning sufficient income or developing necessary skills during separation and while the divorce is pending. This presumption can be particularly challenging for spouses who, like A.W., suffer from mental health conditions that genuinely prevent them from working.
Once a spouse successfully rebuts this presumption, Texas Family Code Section 8.052 directs courts to consider numerous factors when determining the nature, amount, duration, and manner of payments. These include each spouse’s financial resources, education and employment skills, duration of the marriage, age and employment history, physical and emotional condition, marital misconduct (including adultery and cruel treatment), contribution as a homemaker, and any family violence history.
For marriages lasting 30 years or more, maintenance may continue for up to 10 years. The amount awarded cannot exceed the lesser of $5,000 or 20% of the paying spouse’s average monthly gross income. Courts must limit duration to the shortest reasonable period allowing the receiving spouse to earn sufficient income for minimum needs, unless ability to work is substantially or totally diminished due to physical or mental disability, custodial duties, or other compelling impediments.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
G.W. appealed only the spousal maintenance award, arguing that A.W. failed to establish her minimum reasonable needs and that the $2,500 monthly award exceeded 20% of his gross income. The Texarkana Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion—meaning the trial court’s judgment would be disturbed only if it acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or failed to properly apply the law.
Establishing Minimum Reasonable Needs
The appellate court noted that “minimum reasonable needs” is not defined in the Texas Family Code, giving trial courts discretion to determine these needs on a case-by-case basis. While itemized monthly budgets are helpful, the law doesn’t require exactitude. Courts recognize that everyone has basic essential needs like food, utilities, and medical expenses.
The court found sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that A.W.’s minimum needs were at least $2,500 monthly. A.W. testified she wanted to purchase a home for herself, and while she didn’t provide a specific mortgage estimate, the court knew the marital home mortgage was $1,928.28. From G.W.’s expense list, the court could reasonably conclude that yard maintenance ($150), food ($1,000), trash ($30), cell phone ($150), cable ($140), internet ($150), and electricity ($600) were reasonable monthly expenses. The court could also estimate that A.W.’s health insurance would cost approximately $1,050 monthly, given that she had been paying $2,100 for both spouses’ coverage.
Additionally, A.W.’s credit card statements showed average monthly expenses of 2,481 over three months. Both A.W. and G.W. testified they couldn’t survive on less than $2,000 monthly, with G.W. stating he “might could live on … [ ]3,900[.00] per month.” When considering that A.W. wanted her own home and that food, utilities, and medical expenses alone exceeded $3,120 monthly, the court found reasonable support for the trial court’s conclusion that minimum needs were at least $2,500.
Sufficient Property Analysis
G.W. argued that A.W. had sufficient property to meet her needs because she received 65% of the community estate, valued at approximately $1.34 million. However, the appellate court emphasized that Texas law doesn’t require spouses to “spend down long-term assets, liquidate all available assets, or incur new debt simply to obtain job skills and meet short-term needs.” Assets that cannot be accessed “immediately and without consequence” are not considered when determining whether a spouse has sufficient property.
A.W.’s separate property included only a savings account with $105, jewelry, and cemetery plots. While she inherited Edward Jones accounts totaling $51,302.04, she wasn’t required to spend down these long-term retirement assets. G.W. himself testified that withdrawing from retirement accounts would hurt both parties.
Regarding the marital and rental property sales, G.W. testified the real estate market was declining, with no prediction of when properties would sell. Each property also carried a mortgage that would need to be satisfied. While the trial court awarded A.W. checking and bank accounts totaling approximately $143,000, the court could reasonably conclude these funds would be needed for a down payment on A.W.’s future home.
Viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict, the appellate court found sufficient evidence that A.W. couldn’t access funds immediately and without consequence to meet her minimum reasonable needs, despite the substantial property division.
The Twenty Percent Calculation
G.W.’s second argument focused on whether $2,500 monthly exceeded 20% of his gross income. The court examined the definition of “gross income” under Texas Family Code Section 8.055, which includes all wages and salary, interest and dividends, self-employment income, net rental income, and all other income actually being received.
The trial court awarded G.W. the real estate business, which had generated substantial income. Net profits from self-employment were $362,074 in 2021 and $252,486 in 2022. Even in 2023, when A.W. stopped working at the business in March and the divorce was filed, net profits were $170,851, approximately $14,237.58 monthly. Because $2,500 was less than 20% of even the lowest monthly net profit reported, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion.
The court also emphasized that when determining maintenance amounts, trial courts consider multiple factors beyond just income calculations. Here, the court could properly consider A.W.’s age (61 at trial), her inability to work due to trauma, her sacrifice of a teaching career to homeschool the children, and G.W.’s extreme marital misconduct, all weighed against G.W.’s continued ability to work and substantial earning potential from the business he retained.
Key Takeaways for Dallas-Area Spouses
The Willis case provides several critical lessons for individuals navigating divorce in the Dallas metropolitan area:
Mental Health Evidence Matters: Expert testimony from qualified mental health professionals can be crucial in establishing inability to work. Dr. R.’s detailed diagnosis and explanation of how A.W.’s trauma symptoms prevented employment provided the foundation for the maintenance award.
Long-Term Homemaker Contributions Count: Courts recognize that spouses who sacrifice careers to support the family and the other spouse’s business endeavors deserve consideration, especially when those contributions go uncompensated and unreflected in retirement benefits.
Marital Misconduct Remains Relevant: While Texas is a no-fault divorce state, fault grounds like adultery and cruelty still matter when courts determine spousal maintenance amounts and property division. G.W.’s decades of betrayal, coupled with his continuing harassment through hundreds of unwanted emails and texts, factored significantly into the trial court’s decision.
Property Division and Maintenance Are Separate: Receiving a substantial property division doesn’t automatically disqualify someone from maintenance if that property consists of non-liquid assets or long-term investments that shouldn’t be immediately liquidated.
Strategic Considerations in Maintenance Cases
What we’ve learned from this case is the importance of comprehensive evidence development in spousal maintenance claims. Different approaches might have included earlier mental health evaluations to document A.W.’s condition as it developed, rather than waiting until closer to trial. Alternative strategies could have involved consulting with vocational rehabilitation experts to provide additional testimony about A.W.’s employability prospects.
For those working with a Dallas family law attorney, this case demonstrates the value of creating a detailed record about historical income contributions, especially when one spouse performed unpaid labor in a family business. Had A.W. been properly compensated throughout the marriage, or had income been reported to reflect her contributions, her retirement benefits wouldn’t have been so drastically lower than G.W.’s.
The case also highlights the importance of documenting harassment and ongoing misconduct. The 252 emails and 260 text messages G.W. sent against A.W.’s wishes became part of the record, demonstrating his continuing impact on her ability to heal and potentially return to work. For clients dealing with similar situations, working with a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation early can help establish appropriate boundaries and documentation procedures.
Protecting Your Financial Future After Long-Term Marriage
Divorce after decades of marriage presents unique challenges, particularly when one spouse has sacrificed career opportunities to support the family or the other spouse’s business. The Willis decision affirms that Texas courts will consider the totality of circumstances when evaluating maintenance claims, including mental health impacts from marital misconduct, historical contributions to family businesses, and the practical realities of re-entering the workforce at age 60 or beyond.
At our Dallas family law practice, we bring over 25 years of experience handling complex divorce cases involving spousal maintenance, property division, and the intersection of mental health issues with family law. 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 every divorce involves unique circumstances requiring individualized strategies. Whether you’re seeking spousal support after a long-term marriage, defending against what you believe is an excessive maintenance claim, or navigating the complex intersection of property division and support obligations, we provide honest assessments grounded in realistic expectations based on current Texas law.
If you’re considering divorce after a long-term marriage, dealing with the financial aftermath of a spouse’s infidelity, or seeking to understand your rights regarding spousal maintenance, we invite you to schedule a consultation to discuss your specific situation. Our experienced team can evaluate your circumstances, explain relevant legal standards, and develop a strategic approach tailored to protecting your financial security.
Don’t face the complexities of Texas spousal maintenance law alone. Contact us today to learn more about how our comprehensive divorce services can help you achieve fair outcomes for your post-divorce future. For a best divorce lawyer in Dallas consultation, call our office or visit our contact page to begin the conversation about protecting your financial interests. Learn more about our approach to family law and how we can help you navigate this challenging transition with both strategic precision and compassionate support.
