In the Matter of the Marriage of Bryan Wagner and Sabrina Wagner, 06-26-00012-CV, September 30, 2026.
On appeal from 43rd District Court, Parker County, Texas
Synopsis
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) authorizes an appellate court to modify a final divorce decree by deleting recitals stating that the decree resulted from the parties’ agreement when the record establishes that the case was tried and no agreement existed. The Sixth Court of Appeals removed the erroneous agreement language and affirmed the decree as modified, while rejecting or declining to reach the appellant’s remaining challenges.
Relevance to Family Law
Divorce decrees routinely contain form language characterizing provisions as “agreed,” “approved,” or based on the parties’ stipulations. Wagner demonstrates that such recitals matter: they may affect enforcement, later construction of the decree, appellate review, and arguments concerning consent to judgment. When a decree follows a contested trial, counsel should ensure that the judgment accurately distinguishes between adjudicated provisions, partial stipulations, and actual Rule 11 or mediated settlement agreements.
The decision also illustrates the limited but useful corrective authority available on appeal. A party need not necessarily obtain reversal and a new trial merely because the decree inaccurately recites an agreement. If the record conclusively establishes the error and the correction does not require new fact-finding, the court of appeals may modify the decree under Rule 43.2(b) and affirm it as modified.
Beyond that narrow correction, Wagner reinforces familiar but consequential principles governing family-law appeals: property divisions receive substantial deference; evidentiary and procedural complaints must be preserved in the trial court; and inadequately briefed issues may be forfeited regardless of their perceived merits.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Bryan and Sabrina Wagner married in 2012. Bryan filed for divorce in October 2024 after Sabrina was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon arising from an incident in which, according to the evidence, she held a handgun to his head and threatened to kill him. Bryan sought a disproportionate division of the community estate based on Sabrina’s fault in the breakup of the marriage and later requested a permanent injunction for his protection.
The trial record included deemed admissions, Bryan’s testimony, photographs, criminal records, and evidence concerning multiple incidents of assault, threats, property destruction, and harassment. The deemed admissions included statements that Sabrina had repeatedly assaulted Bryan and had attempted to kill him. Photographs from an interior camera depicted Sabrina holding a handgun to Bryan’s head. Bryan also presented evidence of damage to the marital residence and approximately $5,802.88 in repair expenses incurred to prepare the property for sale.
Sabrina did not respond to Bryan’s discovery requests, produce requested financial documentation, or file an inventory. At trial, she did not object to Bryan’s sworn inventory and property appraisal. Bryan requested reimbursement for repairs to the marital home, 60% of the net sale proceeds, and an award of his retirement benefits in light of the physical and emotional harm he had sustained.
The final decree awarded each party specified personal property, cash, retirement interests, vehicles, and assigned debts. It directed that the marital residence be sold, gave Bryan authority to select the realtor and sales price, reimbursed him for the documented repairs, and divided the remaining proceeds 60% to Bryan and 40% to Sabrina. The decree also imposed a permanent injunction against Sabrina and awarded Bryan $7,500 in attorney’s fees.
Although the matter had proceeded through a contested trial, the written decree included recitals indicating that its provisions resulted from the parties’ agreement. Sabrina appealed pro se and raised numerous complaints, including a challenge to those agreement recitals and to the address used for the marital residence.
Issues Decided
The court addressed whether:
- The trial court abused its discretion by awarding Bryan a disproportionate share of the community estate, including the 60/40 division of the residence proceeds, reimbursement for repairs, control over the sale, and retirement and personal-property awards.
- The trial judge’s involvement in both the divorce and a criminal proceeding involving Sabrina constituted structural error.
- The trial court improperly excluded Sabrina’s evidence.
- Admission of Sabrina’s criminal records violated Texas Rule of Evidence 403.
- Bryan’s attorney should have been permitted to testify concerning attorney’s fees.
- Judicial warnings improperly silenced Sabrina during trial.
- Discovery rulings or the alleged denial of discovery deprived Sabrina of a fair trial.
- The trial court erred by failing to award or adequately consider spousal maintenance.
- The permanent injunction protecting Bryan was inequitable.
- The decree improperly shifted tax liabilities.
- The final decree should be corrected because it inaccurately recited that its terms were based on an agreement and allegedly used an incorrect address for the marital residence.
Rules Applied
Texas Family Code Section 7.001 requires a trial court to divide the community estate in a manner that the court deems “just and right,” having due regard for the rights of each party. A just-and-right division need not be equal, and fault in the breakup of the marriage may support a disproportionate division.
Property divisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. As reflected in Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tex. 2018), an appellate court does not merely reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s. Reversal is warranted only when the disposition is manifestly unjust and unfair. The reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling and indulges applicable presumptions in favor of the judgment. See also In re Marriage of Ford, 435 S.W.3d 347, 350 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.); Watson v. Watson, 286 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.).
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) permits a court of appeals to “modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified.” That authority allows an appellate court to correct erroneous language in a final decree when the record conclusively establishes the proper correction and additional trial-court fact-finding is unnecessary.
The court also applied the ordinary rules of error preservation and appellate briefing. Evidentiary, procedural, and judicial-conduct complaints generally must be presented to the trial court through a timely and sufficiently specific objection or request. An appellate brief must also contain a clear argument supported by appropriate legal authority and citations to the record; conclusory assertions do not ordinarily present an issue for appellate review.
Because the appeal was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals to the Sixth Court of Appeals through docket equalization, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3 required the Sixth Court to apply the precedent of the transferor court when deciding the appeal.
Application
The appellate court first examined the property division under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Bryan presented extensive evidence concerning Sabrina’s fault in the breakup of the marriage, including deemed admissions, testimony, photographs, evidence of repeated violence, and proof of damage to the marital residence. He also introduced documentation supporting the repair expenditures for which the decree ordered reimbursement. Sabrina did not object to his sworn inventory and appraisal and did not provide competing financial documentation or an inventory of her own.
Against that record, the court declined to reweigh the evidence supporting the 60/40 division of the residence proceeds, the repair reimbursement, and the remaining allocation of property and debts. The trial court had evidence from which it could conclude that a disproportionate division was just and right, particularly given the findings and evidence concerning fault, violence, property damage, and the parties’ respective financial circumstances.
Several of Sabrina’s additional complaints failed for procedural reasons rather than after a merits determination. The court concluded that she had not preserved her complaints concerning the trial judge’s involvement in the criminal proceeding, exclusion of evidence, admission of criminal records, and testimony by Bryan’s counsel concerning attorney’s fees. Her complaints regarding judicial warnings, discovery, and spousal maintenance were rejected as meritless. The challenges to the permanent injunction and tax-liability allocation were inadequately briefed.
The decree’s agreement recitals presented a different problem. The appellate record showed that the divorce was adjudicated following a contested trial; the parties had not reached an agreement supporting the decree. Consequently, language representing the decree as an agreed disposition was affirmatively inaccurate. Because the record conclusively established both the error and the appropriate correction, the court did not order a new trial or remand for entry of a new decree. It exercised its authority under Rule 43.2(b), deleted the erroneous references to an agreement, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Holding
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the community estate. The evidence supported the reimbursement for repairs, the disproportionate allocation of the residence proceeds, and the broader property division, and the result was not manifestly unjust or unfair.
Sabrina failed to preserve her complaints concerning the trial judge’s dual involvement, exclusion of evidence, admission of criminal records, and attorney-fee testimony. Those issues therefore did not provide a basis for reversal.
The court rejected as meritless Sabrina’s complaints concerning judicial warnings, discovery, and spousal maintenance. Her challenges to the permanent injunction and tax-liability allocation were inadequately briefed and did not present reversible error.
The final decree incorrectly stated that its provisions resulted from the parties’ agreement. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court modified the decree to delete those erroneous recitals and affirmed the decree as modified.
Practical Application
Before submitting or approving a proposed decree following a contested trial, compare every recital against the reporter’s record, the court’s rendition, and any written settlement documents. Standardized decree language should not characterize adjudicated provisions as agreed merely because opposing counsel approved the document “as to form” or because the parties stipulated to isolated facts.
If the parties reached only a partial agreement, identify the agreed and adjudicated provisions separately. The decree should state precisely which provisions arise from a Rule 11 agreement, mediated settlement agreement, stipulation, or uncontested evidentiary matter and which provisions were decided by the court. Precision reduces later disputes over consent, enforceability, waiver, and the availability of appellate review.
For the appellant, Wagner illustrates the value of requesting targeted appellate relief. When the record conclusively establishes a drafting error, ask the appellate court to modify the judgment under Rule 43.2(b), identify the exact language to be deleted or replaced, and explain why the correction requires no new evidence or discretionary decision.
The case also underscores the consequences of an incomplete trial record. In a property dispute, counsel should timely serve discovery, respond to requests for admission, file a sworn inventory and appraisal, introduce competing valuation evidence, and object to unsupported characterizations or values. A party who allows admissions to become deemed and fails to submit financial evidence will face a formidable abuse-of-discretion standard on appeal.
Finally, preserve every complaint at the earliest practical opportunity. Alleged judicial bias, evidentiary exclusions, Rule 403 objections, discovery disputes, and objections to attorney-fee testimony ordinarily require a timely trial-court objection or motion and an adverse ruling. Appellate briefing must then connect the preserved ruling to the governing authority, the relevant record, and a demonstrated harmful effect on the judgment.
Checklists
Reviewing a Contested Divorce Decree
- Confirm that the decree accurately states whether the case was tried, settled, or partially settled.
- Delete generic “agreement” recitals when no agreement exists.
- Identify each provision derived from a Rule 11 agreement, mediated settlement agreement, or stipulation.
- Distinguish approval “as to form” from consent to the substance of the judgment.
- Compare the decree with the trial court’s oral rendition and written findings.
- Verify party names, property descriptions, legal descriptions, addresses, account identifiers, and vehicle information.
- Confirm that the decree’s property division matches the inventory, valuation evidence, and rendition.
- Review injunction language for specificity, scope, duration, and evidentiary support.
- Confirm that reimbursement awards identify the amount and the property or funds from which payment will be made.
- Preserve written objections to language that materially departs from the rendition or record.
Seeking Modification Under Rule 43.2(b)
- Quote the exact portion of the judgment that is erroneous.
- Cite the portions of the clerk’s and reporter’s records conclusively establishing the error.
- Provide the appellate court with the precise replacement or deletion language requested.
- Explain why the correction is ministerial or record-based rather than dependent on new fact-finding.
- Request that the judgment be affirmed as modified.
- Address whether the proposed modification affects any other provision of the decree.
- Avoid seeking a substantive redistribution of property under the label of a clerical correction.
Preserving Property-Division Complaints
- File a complete sworn inventory and appraisal.
- Offer admissible evidence of value, characterization, debt, reimbursement, and tax consequences.
- Object to unsupported valuations and property characterizations.
- Respond timely to requests for admission and move promptly to withdraw deemed admissions when necessary.
- Obtain rulings on objections, motions to compel, and requests for additional discovery.
- Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when they will assist appellate review.
- Identify why the overall division—not merely one isolated award—is manifestly unjust and unfair.
- Preserve complaints concerning the decree’s variance from the trial court’s rendition.
Preserving Evidentiary and Procedural Error
- Make a timely and specific objection stating the applicable legal ground.
- Obtain an express or clearly adverse ruling.
- Make an offer of proof when evidence is excluded.
- Raise Rule 403 objections when evidence is offered, not for the first time on appeal.
- Object to attorney-fee testimony before or during its admission.
- Present discovery complaints to the trial court and secure a ruling.
- Raise alleged judicial bias or disqualification issues through the appropriate trial-court procedure.
- Explain harm by connecting the challenged ruling to a material component of the judgment.
Preparing the Appellate Brief
- Identify where each issue was preserved.
- Cite the precise ruling under review.
- Apply the correct standard of review.
- Support every material factual assertion with a record citation.
- Support each legal proposition with pertinent authority.
- Analyze the entire community-property division when claiming an abuse of discretion.
- State the exact appellate relief requested.
- Separate requests for reversal from requests for modification under Rule 43.2(b).
Citation
In the Matter of the Marriage of Bryan Wagner and Sabrina Wagner, No. 06-26-00012-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~d9ccb7b3-20fc-42fe-8987-40c773f2ecce~~
Share this content: