IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00004-CV
IN RE TROY PAUL
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, we are asked to determine whether the respondent,
Judge William Bosworth of the 413th Judicial District Court, abused his discretion by
making a finding that an informal marriage existed between relator Troy Paul and real
party in interest Destiny Spillers and awarding $425,000 in interim attorney’s fees.
Because we believe that Destiny did not meet the ninety-day-residency requirement at
the time she filed her counter-petition for divorce, we conclude that the respondent
abused his discretion in entering the complained-of orders. We therefore conditionally
grant Troy’s petition for writ of mandamus.1
1 All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Destiny, a Texas resident, and Troy, an Oklahoma resident and owner of a
multimillion dollar trucking business, began dating in August 2013, after meeting at a
poker run—a race involving fast, expensive boats. Destiny alleged that she and Troy
began living together at a house in Burleson, Johnson County, Texas, in September 2013.
Destiny also asserted that she was informally married to Troy, calling several witnesses
to satisfy her burden of making a prima facie case of an informal marriage. Troy and his
witnesses denied that Destiny and Troy were married. In any event, Destiny later
discovered that she was pregnant and believed that Troy is the father.
On June 3, 2015, Troy filed a petition to adjudicate parentage in Johnson County.
On September 9, 2015, in a separate suit, Troy filed a first amended petition and
application for temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent
injunction addressing Destiny’s usage of Troy’s iPad. On September 16, 2015, Destiny
answered Troy’s petitions and filed a counter-petition for divorce, asserting that she and
Troy had an informal marriage. Thereafter, Troy moved to consolidate all of the
proceedings into one case in Johnson County. The trial court granted Troy’s
consolidation motion.
On October 15, 2015, the 413th District Court began a hearing to determine
whether Destiny could make a prima facie case for informal marriage. At the hearing,
Destiny was repeatedly asked about her residence—namely, whether she had lived in
In re Paul Page 2
Johnson County ninety days prior to filing for divorce. Troy insisted that Destiny did not
meet the ninety-day residency requirement because she lived with her mother in Tarrant
County at the time she filed for divorce. Troy moved to dismiss Destiny’s counter-
petition for divorce; however, this motion was denied.
On November 13, 2015, the trial court resumed the hearing on the informal
marriage. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court concluded that Destiny had
made a prima-facie showing of informal marriage and, after a subsequent hearing on
December 21, 2015, issued temporary orders requiring Troy to pay $425,000 in interim
attorney’s fees by January 2, 2016. Troy filed a mandamus petition and an emergency
motion to stay the execution of the temporary orders in this Court. We stayed the
enforcement of the trial court’s temporary orders pertaining to the attorney’s fees.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse
of discretion when there is “no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (citations omitted). “A trial
court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.”
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). “Thus, a clear failure by the trial court
to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citations
omitted). In addition, a trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so
arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Id. at 839.
In re Paul Page 3
Regarding the resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial court’s
discretion, relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only
one decision. Id. at 839-40. We cannot disturb the trial court’s decision unless it is shown
to be arbitrary and unreasonable, even if we would have decided the issue differently.
Id. at 840.
With respect to the “adequate remedy by appeal” prong, the Texas Supreme Court
has noted that the operative word, “adequate,” does not have a comprehensive
definition. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. “Instead, it is simply a proxy
for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when appellate
courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of lower courts. In
re Reynolds, 369 S.W.3d 638, 646 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding) (citing In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136). “These considerations include both public
and private interests, and the determination is practical and prudential rather than
abstract or formulaic.” Id. (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136).
Therefore, an appellate remedy may be inadequate when the benefits to mandamus
review outweigh the detriments. See In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462,
468-69 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex.
2008) (orig. proceeding). “Mandamus will not issue when the law provides another,
plain, adequate, and complete remedy.” In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210
S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. 2006).
In re Paul Page 4
III. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
In his first issue, Troy contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing
to dismiss Destiny’s divorce petition because she did not meet the ninety-day residency
requirement outlined in section 6.301 of the Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §
6.301 (West 2006). We agree that Destiny did not meet the residency requirements before
filing her divorce petition.
Section 6.301 of the Family Code provides the following:
A suit for divorce may not be maintained in this state unless at the time the
suit is filed either the petitioner or the respondent has been:
(1) a domiciliary of this state for the preceding six-month period; and
(2) a resident of the county in which the suit is filed for the preceding
90-day period.
Id. Numerous courts have held that this section is not jurisdictional, but it controls a
petitioner’s right to sue for divorce; in other words, it is a mandatory requirement that
cannot be waived. See In re Milton, 420 S.W.3d 245, 252 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2013, orig. proceeding); In re Green, 385 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012,
orig. proceeding) (“Although section 6.301 is not itself jurisdictional, it is akin to a
jurisdictional provision because it controls a party’s right to maintain suit for divorce and
is a mandatory requirement that cannot be waived.”); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 86 S.W.3d 272,
276 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); McCaskill v. McCaskill, 761 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied) (“Though not jurisdictional, the residency
In re Paul Page 5
requirement protects the interests of the State as well as the parties, and cannot be waived
by the parties.”); see also In re Marriage of Lai, 333 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009,
orig. proceeding) (holding that a trial court cannot maintain a suit for divorce unless the
residency requirements are met). “Residency must be established as of the date the suit
for divorce is filed; it is not enough that ninety days of residency will pass during the
pendency of the divorce proceeding.” In re Milton, 420 S.W.3d at 252 (citing In re Rowe,
182 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, orig. proceeding)). “The public policy
behind these requirements is to prevent forum shopping by divorce litigants.” Id. (citing
Reynolds, 86 S.W.3d at 277).
Moreover, Texas courts have noted that when the residency requirements are not
met, the trial court should abate the suit so that either the petitioner or the respondent
can meet the residency requirements. Id. (citing In re Green, 385 S.W.3d at 670; Reynolds,
86 S.W.3d at 277 (“The failure of the divorce petition to properly allege residency renders
the suit subject to abatement.”)). “When, however, the record indicates that neither party
intends to reside in the county of suit, abating the suit will not cure a failure to meet the
residency requirements.” Id. (citing In re Green, 385 S.W.3d at 670 (“Because neither party
will ever meet the residency requirements, the impediment to the trial court going
forward with the suit cannot be removed[,]” and dismissal is the proper remedy)).
Here, the evidence adduced at the October 15, 2015 hearing demonstrates that
Destiny did not live in Johnson County at the time she filed her counter-petition for
In re Paul Page 6
divorce or for the ninety days preceding the filing. Specifically, Destiny testified that she
moved in with her mother in Fort Worth on June 1, 2015, and that she continued to live
in Fort Worth until the October 15, 2015 hearing.2 However, on September 23, 2015,
Destiny filed her counter-petition for divorce in Johnson County, despite still residing in
Tarrant County. Because Destiny did not live in Johnson County at the time she filed her
counter-petition for divorce or in the ninety days preceding the filing, and because the
record indicates that Troy lived in Oklahoma at the time the divorce petition was filed,
we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the ninety-day
residency requirements were met.3 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 6.301; In re Milton, 420
2 We judicially notice that the City of Fort Worth is in Tarrant County, not Johnson County. See
Tarrant County, Texas: About Tarrant County, http://access.tarrantcounty.com/en/county/about-
tarrant.html (last visited Apr. 7, 2016); see also TEX. R. EVID. 201.
3 In her response to Troy’s mandamus petition, Destiny asserts that Troy judicially admitted in his
first amended petition and application for temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and
permanent injunction that venue was proper in Johnson County. Specifically, in this pleading that was
filed before Destiny’s counter-petition for divorce, Troy alleged that venue is proper in Johnson County
because Destiny “is an individual resident and citizen of, and physically present within Johnson County,
Texas . . . .” However, the record indicates that Destiny generally denied Troy’s allegations and that Destiny
unequivocally testified at the October 15, 2015 hearing that she lived in Fort Worth at the time she filed her
September 23, 2015 counter-petition for divorce and at least ninety days preceding the filing of her divorce
petition. See Collin County Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Fournier, 453 S.W.3d 536, 541 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014,
no pet.) (“‘[T]he law is well-settled that a party’s pleadings are not evidence of the facts alleged therein.’”
(quoting NBS S., Inc. v. Mail Box, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 470, 471-72 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, writ denied))); see
also Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Borhani, No. 03-08-00142-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7509, at *10 (Tex. App.—
Austin Oct. 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The allegations alone in a verified petition, after being put in issue
by a general denial, do not constitute proof of those allegations.”). As such, we are not persuaded by
Destiny’s argument that Troy judicially admitted that venue was proper in Johnson County at the time
Destiny filed her counter-petition for divorce.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Troy’s argument that Destiny’s divorce petition should be
dismissed for failure to meet the residency requirements. At the November 13, 2015 hearing, Destiny
testified that it is her intention to stay in Burleson, Johnson County, Texas, and that Burleson is where she
calls home. As stated earlier, dismissal of a divorce petition for failure to meet the residency requirements
In re Paul Page 7
S.W.3d at 252; In re Green, 385 S.W.3d at 668; In re Marriage of Lai, 333 S.W.3d at 648;
Reynolds, 86 S.W.3d at 276; McCaskill, 761 S.W.2d at 473; see also Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-
40.
IV. AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS RELIEF
The Texas Supreme Court, in In re Prudential, held that review of significant rulings
in exceptional cases may be essential to: (1) preserve a relator’s substantive or procedural
rights from impairment or loss; (2) allow appellate courts to give needed and helpful
direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in an appeal from a final
judgment; and (3) prevent the waste of public and private resources invested into
proceedings that would eventually be reversed. See 148 S.W.3d at 136; see also In re Green,
385 S.W.3d at 671. The Texas Supreme Court mandated that when the benefits outweigh
the detriments, we must consider whether the appellate remedy is adequate. In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. To do so, we employ a balancing test to
determine whether an adequate remedy on appeal exists. Id. at 135-37. “Whether an
appellate remedy is adequate so as to preclude mandamus review depends heavily on
the circumstances presented.” In re Green, 385 S.W.3d at 671 (citing In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 137).
is proper when neither the petitioner nor the respondent in a divorce action will ever meet the residency
requirements. See In re Green, 385 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, orig. proceeding). We
leave the factual question of whether Destiny ever intends to live in Johnson County for the requisite period
for determination by a fact finder. Accordingly, we believe that abatement of the underlying divorce
proceeding to determine if the residency requirements will ever be met is the more appropriate action. See
id.; see also Reynolds v. Reynolds, 86 S.W.3d 272, 277 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
In re Paul Page 8
As previously stated, the record clearly demonstrates that Destiny lived in Tarrant
County at the time she filed her divorce petition and for at least ninety days preceding
the filing. Moreover, it is undisputed that Troy did not live in Johnson County at the time
Destiny filed her divorce petition. Thus, the record does not indicate that the ninety-day
residency requirements were satisfied in this case. Accordingly, because section 6.301 of
the Family Code is mandatory and cannot be waived, any judgment in this case would
eventually be reversed and, thus, amount to a waste of public and private resources
invested into the proceedings. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 6.301; In re Milton, 420 S.W.3d
at 252; In re Green, 385 S.W.3d at 668; In re Marriage of Lai, 333 S.W.3d at 648; Reynolds, 86
S.W.3d at 276; McCaskill, 761 S.W.2d at 473. We therefore conclude that a balancing of
the benefits and detriments yields a finding that Troy lacks an adequate remedy by
appeal and mandamus relief is warranted. See id.; see also In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d at 136-37.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in
determining that the ninety-day residency requirements were met. Accordingly, we
conditionally grant Troy’s petition for writ of mandamus. Because the net effect of
conditionally granting Troy’s mandamus results in the vacatur of the trial court’s
informal-marriage finding and interim attorney’s fees award, we express no opinion
In re Paul Page 9
regarding Troy’s other arguments in his mandamus petition. See, e.g., In re Milton, 420
S.W.3d at 255.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Conditionally granted
Opinion delivered and filed May 5, 2016
[OT06]
In re Paul Page 10
in Re Troy Paul
Combined Opinion