SCOTX Clarifies the Boundary Between Enforcing and Modifying Property Divisions in Divorce Decrees

Morrison v. Morrison, 24-0053, January 30, 2026.

On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of Texas held that while trial courts possess jurisdiction under Chapter 9 to enforce property divisions and award damages for a party’s breach, they cannot reallocate community assets—such as home sale proceeds—without specific evidence of the fair market value of the lost or damaged property. The Court clarified that an award of damages that substantively alters a decree’s property division without a tether to proven valuation constitutes an impermissible modification under Texas Family Code Section 9.007.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision is a critical reminder for practitioners that the boundary between “enforcement” and “modification” is governed by the nature of the relief and the evidence supporting it. In post-decree litigation involving damaged or missing assets, the movant must prove the specific fair market value (FMV) of those items. Relying on “penalty” provisions in a decree to justify a wholesale reallocation of sale proceeds will likely fail on appeal if those damages are not supported by a dollar-for-dollar evidentiary accounting.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Rodney and Debbie Morrison entered into an agreed divorce decree that mandated the sale of their marital home and a workshop, with proceeds to be split equally between the parties. The decree included a specific “delivery provision”: if either party failed to deliver designated personal property or real property in its original condition, the FMV of that property would be assessed against the breaching party and “accounted for” out of the proceeds from the marital home sale.

Following the divorce, Debbie moved for contempt and enforcement, alleging Rodney had damaged the home and failed to deliver numerous items of personal property to the receiver. After a series of hearings, the trial court found thirty-six violations by Rodney. Despite making no specific findings regarding the FMV of the missing items or the diminution in value of the real property, the trial court awarded Debbie $449,254.96 in damages—an amount precisely equal to 100% of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home. Effectively, the court stripped Rodney of his entire share of the home’s equity. The Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District vacated the order, concluding it was an impermissible modification that stripped the trial court of jurisdiction.

Issues Decided

The Court addressed whether a trial court exceeds its enforcement jurisdiction under Family Code Chapter 9 when it reallocates 100% of a community asset as damages for a breach of the decree without evidence of the fair market value of the lost property.

Rules Applied

The Court applied Texas Family Code Section 9.001, which authorizes a court to enforce a decree’s property division, and Section 9.010, which allows for a money judgment for damages caused by a party’s failure to comply. These were balanced against Section 9.007, which explicitly prohibits a court from rendering an order that “amends, modifies, alters, or changes the actual, substantive division of property.” The Court also looked to the language of the decree itself, which required damages to be “assessed” based on FMV.

Application

The Court’s analysis focused on the jurisdictional distinction between the power to hear a case and the power to grant specific relief. It first corrected the court of appeals’ procedural holding, noting that because the trial court had the authority to enforce the decree and award damages, it did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the case entirely. However, the Court then looked at the substantive relief granted.

The legal story here centers on the failure of evidence. While the decree allowed for a “redistribution of cash” to satisfy damages, those damages had to be rooted in the FMV of the property Rodney failed to deliver. By awarding Debbie 100% of the home proceeds without any valuation of the thirty-six violations, the trial court did not “calculate” damages; it “redivided” the estate. The Court reasoned that because the award changed Rodney’s 50% interest in the home proceeds to a 0% interest without a proven valuation to justify the offset, the order crossed the line from a permissible enforcement under Section 9.010 to a prohibited modification under Section 9.007.

Holding

The Court held that a trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a divorce decree and may award damages for a party’s failure to deliver or maintain property as ordered. This includes the authority to issue a money judgment or offset funds from a party’s share of community assets.

However, the Court further held that a trial court exceeds this authority and impermissibly modifies a decree when it reallocates property interests (such as sale proceeds) as damages without evidence of the specific fair market value of the lost or damaged assets. Because the trial court in this case redivided the home proceeds without FMV findings, the order was unenforceable. The case was remanded for further proceedings to properly determine the value of the damages.

Practical Application

For the family law litigator, this case highlights the necessity of expert testimony or clear FMV evidence in enforcement actions. You cannot rely on the court’s equitable sense of “fairness” to reallocate a client’s share of a house just because the other side was a bad actor. To protect a damage award on appeal, you must ensure the record contains a specific dollar-for-dollar nexus between the breach and the remedy. If you are representing the respondent, the lack of FMV evidence is now a jurisdictional shield against “penalty-style” reallocations of property.

Checklists

Proving Damages in Enforcement Actions

• Establish the “Baseline” Condition: Evidence of the property’s state at the time of the decree (photos, inventories).
• Document the Breach: Specific findings for each item not delivered or each instance of damage.
• Provide FMV Evidence:
• Appraisals for real property diminution.
• Market data or expert testimony for personal property FMV.
• Repair estimates for physical damage.
• Drafting the Order: Ensure the order ties the total damage award to the sum of the proven valuations.

Drafting Decrees to Avoid “Morrison” Issues

• Include a “Liquidation of Value” clause: If possible, stipulate to the value of high-risk assets within the decree itself.
• Define the Offset Mechanism: Explicitly state that any offset against sale proceeds must be supported by an evidentiary hearing on FMV.
• Mandate Pre-Sale Inspections: Require a joint inspection of the real property prior to the move-out date to document condition.

Citation

Morrison v. Morrison, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2026) (No. 24-0053).

Full Opinion

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462036/240053.pdf

~~6cccbc67-6219-4df9-82ed-daf18d2d5a70~~