Cohabitation and Domestic Partnership Agreements in Texas

December 12th, 2011

Premarital and post-marital agreements in Texas have a complex history immersed in the community property presumption, the sate constitution, statutes and case law. Originally, such agreements were found to be unenforceable. But with amendments to the Texas Constitution, evolving statutes, recent case law, and improved draftsmanship, such agreements are now enforceable under contract law.

For some couples living together is a precursor to marriage; for others, there is no intent to ever marry, or the law prohibits the marriage, as in Texas with same sex marriages. The simple fact is, domestic partnership agreements involve a wide variety of circumstances, which may or may not involve the gay or lesbian couple.

Many couples choose to live together so they do not lose certain benefits under current rules of social security, military and insurance disability programs, or to stop those benefits from being taken away from their children. In other cases, couples who are divorced, and who may have children, may want to protect certain assets. In situations such as trust funds or inherited funds, beneficiaries simply do not want to place family money at risk. Other couples choose to shelter their own resources from the real or perceived obligations of their partner.

The marital agreement is considered to be a contract under Texas law. The premarital agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. No actual consideration is required; however, to conform with contractual law, it may be wise to provide benefits for the non-monied party to avoid a later finding of unconscionability, particularly if the financial condition of the non-monied party under the agreement will be poor.

Matters that may be dealt with in a premarital agreement include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. the right to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise manage and control property;

2. the rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever or wherever acquired or located;

3. the disposition of property on separation, marital dissolution, death, or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;

4. the modification or elimination of spousal support;

5. the making of a will, trust, or other arrangement to carry out the provisions of the agreement;

6. the ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit from a life insurance policy;

7. the choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and

8. any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty.

Child support may not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement. Therefore, provisions providing for the elimination of child support upon separation or divorce are unenforceable. However, provisions for private education, college expenses, and choice of residence may be included, but may still be reviewed by a court to determine if they are in keeping with public policy.

In post-marital agreements, it has been noted that a fiduciary duty exists that is not present in pre-marital agreements between spouses or prospective spouses. Case law states that a confidential relationship between husband and wife imposes the same duties of good faith and fair dealing on spouses as required of partners and other fiduciaries. However, adverse parties who have retained independent counsel may not owe fiduciary duties to one another. Texas Legislature enacted Section 4.105 with the understanding that married spouses owing fiduciary duties to one another would negotiate and execute post-marital agreements. Not withstanding these duties, the legislature manifested the strong policy preference that voluntarily made post-marital agreements are enforceable.
Cohabitation, domestic partnership, premarital and post-marital agreements may be as creative as a party determines necessary. However, care must be given to see that such agreements protect the party, keep with public policy, and adhere to current Texas family law and applicable contractual law.

Same-Sex Marriages in Texas

January 11th, 2011

No “I Do’s” for Same Sex Marriages in Texas.

Before you get those bath towels monogrammed: Mr. and Mr. or Mrs. and Mrs., if you live in the state of Texas, there are few things you should consider.

The conservative state of Texas opposes same-sex marriages or civil unions. Same-sex marriages are contrary to the state’s public policy and are considered void.  If the nuptials are void, a couple may not enjoy normal legal spousal rights, enforceability, protection or acknowledgements.

Rewind a bit and start with what is considered “same-sex” in the state of Texas.  It is only natural for one to think of same-sex as two individuals who were born under the same gender classification. Two males are not permitted to marry one another nor may two women marry one another, although it is not so clear-cut in the Lone Star state.  

The ambiguities commence when you first seek to obtain a marriage license.  To receive a Texas marriage license you must submit a form of identification.  This is where the process gets complex.  There are several types of identification you can offer; a couple of examples are a copy your birth certificate or your driver’s license (in state or out of state).  If either or both of these forms of sex/gender identification matches with your fiancé’s sex/gender, reconsider sending out those wedding invitations.

According to the current list of forms of identification, there are many couples whose marriage license application would appear complete and valid, but who in fact cannot lawfully marry.  Earlier this year in El Paso, Texas, two people who appeared to be women, with the same genital organs applied for a marriage license.  By Texas standards, ‘you are what you are born’; the two individuals did not deem it problematic or expect controversy since one of them was born a male.  To be clear and safe from any procedural violations as to how to deal with the situation, El Paso County officials sought guidance from Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott.  Abbott declined to opine due to a pending case litigating a similar issue.  The case Attorney General Abbott was referring to was the case in Wharton County where the validity of a widow’s marriage to a fallen firefighter is being contested as she was born a man and two males cannot legally marry in the state of Texas.  The widow had undergone Reassignment Surgery (RAS) and is living as a female. For many, because the widow was born a man, the Wharton County case has nothing to do with the situation in El Paso. In El Paso, the couple were born of the opposite sex according to their birth certificates (which is supposed to the determining factor), whereas, in Wharton County both were born male. Attorney, Chad Ellis, states that there is nothing in the law that mentions anything about allowing someone to legally change their gender.  Alternatively, nothing is mentioned about disallowing a person to legally change their gender. 

On September 1, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas overturned a 2009 ruling in the Dallas District Court.  The Dallas court ruled it had jurisdiction over a same-sex divorce and that the marriage ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.  The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the state ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the US Constitution and rationalizes it’s favoring of opposite-sex couples because of their natural ability to procreate.   The court found that a person’s sexual orientation does not affect his or her ability to contribute to society, but it will determine whether or not that person will enter a relationship that is naturally open to procreation; preserving the state’s interest in “fostering relationships that will serve children best” and its legitimate interest in child rearing. 

In 2009, the U.S. Census reported a total 581,300 same-sex partnered households while only 17% of them included children whether biological, adopted, or step-child. An article in the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that children growing up in same-sex households have been described as being more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing to younger children than those raised in opposite-sex households.

Despite the state’s ban, some Texas cities are being recognized for what may seem contrary to its stance. According to the 2006 U.S. Census data, San Antonio, Texas had the highest number of gay couples raising children in the nation; Houston ranked number 4 and the Arlington and Fort Worth area as number 5.

Will Texas lift the ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions?  Will it boil down to Texas defining same-sex as to what gender is marked on their original birth certificate and/or acknowledge transgender persons to be recognized as they view themselves?  Or, will Texas lift its state ban against same-sex marriage altogether?  For the time being, whether you are homosexual, transgendered, or a transgender person who appears to be gay, things get pretty fuzzy in the Alamo State when trying to legalize a union or seek to have a union legally acknowledged and/or enforced.

The Legal Befuddlement of Legal Same Sex Unions

July 16th, 2009

Only in the states of Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire (effective January 1st, 2010), Maine, Vermont (effective September 1, 2009) and California (between June 17, 2008 and November 4, 2008) can same sex couples legally get married. The U.S. Constitutional protections under the Full Faith and Credit Clause provides little solace in the remaining states, unless the marriage has somehow been declared or ordered in an actual judgment of a court with Jurisdiction in the marrying state. The idea that each state will honor and enforce each other state’s judgments does not generally extend to policies contra to the policies of the other state. Although the question is not finally settled by the United States Supreme Court to a certainty, full faith and credit will not generally require a state to recognize or enforce a policy forbidden in the resident state. This places same sex married couples from states in which same sex marriages are valid in a befuddling and precarious situation should they migrate to a different state for employment, family, or other personal reasons.

Some states such as New York, New Jersey, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state have recognized legal domestic partnership or domestic civil unions. Texas is not such a state; so obtaining a divorce, separation or division of assets in a same sex relationship (whether originally legally married or not), in the state of Texas, requires manipulation and application of Texas partnership and property codes, probate considerations along with various other contractual considerations.

Texas family law considerations for same sex couples in adoption situations becomes even more complicated requiring careful compliance with Texas state law and the adoption process to avoid donor issues, limitations, judicial estoppel and case law precedent in Texas which does not recognize or enforce same sex couple marriages.

If a co-parent adoption is properly followed, it is possible in Texas to have two moms or two dads which will be recognized under the Texas Family Code. In such cases a suit affecting the parent child relationship (SAPCR Action) is the appropriate remedy for recognition of and consideration of the minor children of the same sex union by adoption. Child support, health care insurance, visitation, possession and access rights of the parties, transportation costs, and injunctions that preserve the status quo and peace of all parties concerned are all subject to proper litigation and judgment under the Texas Family Code.

Regrettably, under the current Texas law, same sex unions or marriages validly performed and recognized in a state authorizing and providing jurisdiction for such legal relationships will not help the parties in the state of Texas, where it often counts most: health insurance, social security, disability insurance, child support, alimony, etc. The current state of law in Texas further ignores the underlying policy recognized in all states to always consider the best interest of the children. Regardless of policy considerations and decisions with regard to same sex unions, children are never at fault and making their children illegal citizens or citizens unworthy of protection cannot be in their best interest under any interpretation of state policy. Absent legal hoop jumping and manipulation, they are practically children without legal rights in the state of Texas.

Serving clients throughout Texas, including Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Grayson, Kaufman, Rockwall and Tarrant counties and the communities of Addison, Allen, Arlington, Carrollton, Dallas, Fort Worth, Frisco, Garland, Grapevine, Highland Park, McKinney, Mesquite, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett and University Park, Murphy,Wylie, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, along with surrounding DFW areas.