Chance M. Perry v. Courtney L. Perry

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00342-CV
__________________

CHANCE M. PERRY, Appellant

V.

COURTNEY L. PERRY, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. E200480-D
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chance M. Perry (Appellant or Chance) appeals from the trial court’s Order

Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce, Order on Motion for Appointment of Receiver,

and Order for Turnover Relief in favor of Chance’s ex-wife, Courtney L. Perry

(Appellee or Courtney). We affirm the trial court’s orders.

Background

Chance and Courtney were divorced in May of 2023, and this appeal is about

Courtney’s post-divorce enforcement action under Chapter 9 of the Texas Family

1
Code. Chapter 9 allows a party affected by a divorce decree that provides for the

division of property to request enforcement of that decree by filing a suit to enforce

property division outlined in the decree. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.001(a). On

May 1, 2024, Courtney filed her Petition for Enforcement of Property Division and

Alternatively, Application for Turnover Order and Appointment of Receiver

Pursuant to Section 31.002 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code (the

“Petition for Enforcement”) against Chance as the Respondent. Courtney sought

relief under “Section[s] 9.002, 9.0[0]6, 9.012, 9.013, and 9.014” of the Texas Family

Code. See id. §§ 9.002 (court that rendered divorce decree retains power to enforce

the property division), 9.006 (court may render further orders to enforce division of

property made in divorce decree or to clarify the prior order), 9.012 (court may

enforce by contempt an order requiring delivery of specific property or an award of

a right to future property), 9.013 (court may award costs in an enforcement

proceeding), 9.014 (court may award reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, court

costs, and expenses in an enforcement proceeding).

In the Petition for Enforcement, Courtney alleged she had “learned [that

Abundant Life, LLC’s property on Highway 105] is about to be sold and that she

will not receive her share of Respondent’s net proceeds.” Courtney sought the trial

court’s assistance in collecting from Chance the $5,000 judgment for her for

attorney’s fees in a contempt of court action and the one-half of Respondent’s share

2
of the net proceeds of the sale of Abundant Life, LLC previously awarded to her. In

Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement, she seeks the following relief:

a. Order appointing a Receiver to obtain possession of the
Respondent’s property to satisfy the $5,000.00 judgment, and to
hold said property pending orders of distribution by this Court,
specifically his LLC ownership of Abundant Life, LLC or any other
LLC of which Respondent is an owner.

b. Order directing Respondent Judgment Debtor, and third parties in
possession of Respondent’s share of the net proceeds to turnover to
the Receiver Petitioner’s one-half of Respondent’s share of the net
proceeds.

Courtney also requested a turnover order and attorney’s fees associated with her

application for the turnover order under section 31.002(e) of the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code. Courtney requested service of process of the Petition for

Enforcement on Respondent Chance and service of notice of the Petition for

Enforcement to Abundant Life, LLC by serving its registered agent (Chance).

Hearing on Petition for Enforcement and Ruling

At the hearing on Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement, the trial court noted

the history of the proceedings between the parties, that Courtney had filed her

Petition for Enforcement, and that the trial court had “received” certain pleadings by

the parties just days before the hearing.1 Prior to considering the Petition for

1
The pleadings that the trial court refers to that were filed after Courtney’s
Petition for Enforcement are not included in our appellate record. We note that we
may not consider documents in appendices that are not also in the appellate record.
3
Enforcement, the trial court heard Chance’s motion for continuance which the trial

court stated was filed on the day of the hearing.

Chance’s attorney argued that Chance was served with a copy of Courtney’s

Petition for Enforcement on May 22, 2024, less than ten days before the hearing, and

was served a second citation on May 23, 2024, and that Abundant Life, LLC had not

been served with a citation. According to Chance’s attorney, the fact that all the

parties to the suit had not been served violated Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure and prejudiced Abundant Life, LLC’s rights pursuant to Rule 161 of the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chance’s attorney argued that even though Chance

may be the registered agent of Abundant Life, LLC, he did not receive a citation

directed to the business, and no judgment could be entered without service on

Abundant Life, LLC pursuant to Rule 124 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In

requesting a continuance, Chance’s attorney asserted that Courtney had filed a lis

pendens against Abundant Life, LLC based upon her enforcement action, that

Chance “[was] not interested in disturbing the lis pendens[,]” but that Abundant Life,

LLC needed to be served so that it could make an appearance in the case.

Courtney’s attorney argued that Courtney did not ask for Abundant Life, LLC

to be served with process because Abundant Life, LLC is not a party and Courtney

See Taylor v. Langham, No. 09-14-00193-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3233, at *15
(Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).
4
is not seeking affirmative relief from Abundant Life, LLC. Courtney’s attorney

argued:

We did file [a] lis pendens, and we wanted them to be aware of
what we’re trying to do against [Chance] and his interest in this
property. . . . [W]hat we’re doing today is two things. [Chance] owes
[Courtney] a 5,000-dollar judgment that’s two years old now. In the
decree on Page 38, [Courtney] was awarded one-half of his share of net
proceeds of a property owned by Abundant Life on Highway 105 in
Orange County when it sells.
All we’re asking for today is a turnover order against [Chance]
for him to turn over his bank account to pay off the 5,000-dollar
judgment. All we’re asking for on the - - assuming [Chance’s counsel]
is accurate with his assessment that the property has not been sold,
we’re asking for some clarification in the decree so that we put the exact
legal description for that . . . sale and that we appoint a receiver to hold
[Chance]’s interest to ensure that it gets paid to [Courtney] according
to the decree. None of which disturbs Abundant Life in any fashion.
They’re in charge of the sale. We’re not asking for the receiver [to] be
in charge of the sale. We’re only asking the receiver be in charge of
[Chance’s] share of the proceeds to ensure that [Courtney] gets paid.
We’re only asking the Court to clarify the decree so we put the
legal description for that tract of land. Because in all cand[or], Judge, if
[Chance] can figure out a way to weasel out a way of doing that, he’ll
do it. And I’m afraid we have a description in the decree that says
property on Highway 105 in Orange, Texas approximately 40 acres.
That will give him some type of way to avoid paying us, and I’ll be
back up here multiple times trying to collect that money for her; and
we’re talking about a few hundred thousand dollars - - potentially her
share 100,000 or $200,000.
. . . We’re not taking any action against [Abundant Life, LLC],
and we’re only asking for action against [Chance] with regard to an
order turning over his personal bank account to . . . pay off the judgment
and a clarification of the decree for the description of the land to be sold
and the receiver to hold [Chance]’s share after it’s sold to ensure that
[Courtney] gets paid.

5
Chance argued that the filing of the lis pendens affects Abundant Life, LLC’s rights

and, even though Chance may be a representative of Abundant Life, LLC, he is not

the entity’s attorney.

The trial court denied Chance’s motion for continuance and proceeded to

consider Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement. When Chance’s attorney inquired as

to whether it was a contempt hearing as to Chance, the trial court noted that

Courtney’s attorney had not requested contempt relief. The court then heard the

testimony of Courtney, Chance, Courtney’s attorney, and another managing member

of Abundant Life, LLC.

Courtney testified that she is the movant in the current action and that the

divorce was rendered in May of 2023. According to Courtney, even though a

judgment signed in 2022 awarded her $5,000 in attorney’s fees from Chance, Chance

had not yet paid the awarded amount to Courtney, and she had to file the enforcement

action against Chance to recover the money. Courtney stated that she was asking the

trial court to grant her a turnover order ordering Chance to turn over his personal

bank account to pay that judgment. Courtney explained that in the divorce decree

she was also awarded a share of Chance’s proceeds from the sale of Abundant Life,

LLC’s property in Orange County. She requested the trial court enter an order

clarifying the decree’s language by including the exact legal description of that

property so that when the property is sold it is clear that a portion of the proceeds

6
must be paid to Courtney as outlined in the divorce decree. Courtney also testified

that she is seeking recovery of attorney’s fees for her enforcement action.

According to Courtney, the Abundant Life property had been for sale for a

couple of years, at one point it was listed for over $600,000, and she agreed that she

was suspicious that the Abundant Life property “was going to be sold out from under

[her].” Courtney recalled that there are three members in the Abundant Life, LLC,

and the divorce decree awarded Courtney one-half of Chance’s one-third of the

proceeds of the sale of the Abundant Life property. According to Courtney, based

on Chance’s “shenanigans” with other assets and delays he caused during the divorce

proceeding and even recently, she believed Chance may be attempting to avoid

paying her. On cross-examination, Courtney agreed that a lis pendens had been filed

against Abundant Life for the property as a safeguard to give notice to potential

buyers that the property is involved in litigation.

Chance testified that he is one of the managing members of Abundant Life,

LLC, with a one-third membership and is the entity’s registered agent. Chance

explained that he has no savings accounts and two personal checking accounts in his

name – one at First State Bank which has a balance of a few hundred dollars, and

one at First Financial Bank with a balance of less than a hundred dollars. According

to Chance, his paychecks from his insurance agency where he is employed is $1,900

every two weeks and is automatically deposited into the First State Bank checking

7
account which is then used to pay his bills. Chance testified that no other source of

income is deposited into that account. Chance recalled that his businesses have rental

income that is deposited into the business checking accounts. Chance testified that

his LLCs possibly had sold real estate since the divorce trial, and those proceeds

were used to operate the business and were not distributed to him personally.

Chance stated that he did not believe that Abundant Life, LLC’s property on

Highway 105 was currently for sale and that it was taken off the market in the last

few months. He did not believe there was an offer to purchase it within the last six

months or that an offer was rejected in the last six months. According to Chance, the

property was taken off the market because the contract with the realtor ended, and

he was unaware if there was still a “for sale” sign on the property. He initially stated

that he did not know how much the property had been listed for, but he then admitted

that it “may be around 580.” Chance testified that First Financial Bank has the

mortgage on the property and that the three members were to each pay $800 monthly

for the mortgage, and he did not know the balance of that mortgage. He testified that

he had not contributed his mortgage payment for a couple of years and that someone

else was paying Chance’s portion for him. Chance stated that Abundant Life, LLC

has no sources of income other than the 40 acres of property.

Chance agreed that he had not paid Courtney the $5,000 in attorney’s fees

awarded in the earlier judgment. According to Chance, after the trial court signed

8
the judgment, Chance filed an appeal and then a request for a mandamus, and since

the date of the divorce, there has been nothing that precluded collection attempts on

the judgment. Chance recalled that he was served with citation and notice of the

enforcement action on the Wednesday before the hearing. He claimed the citation

was directed only to him, and it appeared to him that Abundant Life, LLC had not

been sued. He testified that during the prior month he learned that Courtney filed a

lis pendens against Abundant Life, LLC, and that the lis pendens is a “cloud on the

title to th[e] property[]” and “prejudiced” the entity’s rights. He stated that even if

there was a sale of the Abundant Life, LLC property, the entity would receive the

proceeds of the sale and not him personally. He agreed that the other members of

Abundant Life, LLC “are not very happy” with the lis pendens. He also agreed they

threatened litigation against him because of the lis pendens and the cloud on the

property’s title. Chance testified that Courtney’s enforcement action has caused him

to incur attorney’s fees, and he agreed that it is “a little drastic” to be asking for a

receiver or a turnover considering there has not even been any post-judgment

discovery.

Courtney’s attorney testified that Courtney had incurred $4,100 reasonable

and necessary attorney’s fees in this enforcement action, and the attorney outlined

the work that he performed. On cross-examination, he agreed that he filed a lis

pendens on Courtney’s behalf on the Abundant Life, LLC property. According to

9
Courtney’s counsel, after the earlier appeal of the divorce decree was dismissed,

Courtney began taking steps to take further action, and the law did not require post-

judgment discovery prior to Courtney seeking a turnover. Courtney’s attorney

agreed that the divorce case was arbitrated, and the parties both signed off on the

arbitration agreement.

Matt Chandler, a managing member of Abundant Life, LLC, testified on

Chance’s behalf. According to Chandler, each of the three members had to guarantee

the mortgage on the property. Chandler recalled that around $160,000 or $180,000

is owed on the mortgage and that the members each are responsible for paying $800

a month for the mortgage. Chandler testified that Chance is the registered agent for

Abundant Life, LLC, and that the entity has never received any sort of service

regarding this case. Chandler recalled that during the prior month a lis pendens was

filed against Abundant Life, LLC’s real property, and the lis pendens made it

difficult to move forward with any transaction to sell the property. He testified that

Abundant Life, LLC had a contract with a realtor to list the property for sale, there

never was an actual purchase contract for the property, no offers were rejected, and

one offer fell through because of issues on the buyer’s end with financing. Chandler

stated that the filing of a lis pendens frustrated the managing partners because it

made it harder to find a buyer for the property, and he and his partner have

considered taking legal action against Chance. Chandler stated that the current plan

10
for the property is to see if they can get a good offer for it because the market has

been unfavorable the last couple of years.

Courtney’s attorney made a closing argument to the trial court and asked for

a turnover of Chance’s bank accounts, for the court to clarify the decree to put the

legal description in the decree to assist in making sure Courtney gets her share of the

proceeds of that sale, for the trial court to appoint a receiver to make sure that when

the sale takes place and so the receiver makes sure that she gets her share, for Chance

to have to pay for all the expenses, and to make Chance accountable by having to

pay attorney’s fees.

Chance’s attorney argued that this is the first case in his almost twenty years

of representing judgment creditors and debtors where it has gone from “zero to Mach

Five[]” with no demand letters, post-judgment discovery efforts, or writs of

execution. Chance’s attorney asserted that receivers charge roughly ten percent

commissions, that appointing a receiver is “a remedy that’s reserved [for] after other

efforts have been exhausted[,]” and that none of those other efforts have been

pursued. Chance’s attorney argued that the trial court should allow post-judgment

discovery, and if Chance is not compliant, “then at that point take that drastic

action[]” such as awarding attorney’s fees, ordering a receiver, or ordering a

turnover.

The trial court stated its ruling on record as follows:

11
You said earlier, [Chance’s attorney], that - - that these were
extreme measures. Well, this - - this is an extreme case. Ever since the
petition [for divorce] was filed on August the 5th of 2020, I have sat
here through numerous hearings. I have heard hours and hours and
hours of testimony. . . .
It has been so frustrating for almost four years. This case takes
the cake. This is not like hardly any other case we’ve ever heard. I’ve
heard these cases for 16 years, heard thousands of divorce cases in that
time; and this is right up there. I mean, clear back from, you know, the
repo situation we talked about. It’s been very frustrating. . . .
So, I am going to grant the relief requested by the petitioner - -
or the movant, [Courtney]. I will grant the request for a turnover order
that [Chance] be ordered to turnover the information of his personal
bank accounts. We’ll just call for them both at First Financial Bank and
First State Bank. Both of those banks I understand to be here in Orange,
order that he not change banks or move any of the money out of those
accounts in those two banks I’ve just listed into any accounts or any
other banks. That will be a period of . . . six months.
I will order that we have clarification and a declaration of the
exact legal description of what’s been referred to as the 40 acres on a
property on Highway 105 in Orange County. I will order that a receiver
be appointed to be in charge of [Chance]’s share of those proceeds. [] I
will grant [Courtney’s attorney]’s request that he be awarded 4,100 in
attorney’s fees. I’ll sign that order as soon as I get it.

The Orders Being Appealed

On July 10, 2024, the trial court signed three orders from which Chance

appeals: an Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce, an Order for Turnover Relief,

and an Order on Motion for Appointment of Receiver. The Order Clarifying Final

Decree of Divorce stated, in pertinent part, the following:

Clarification of Prior Order
The Court finds that certain terms of the Final Decree of Divorce
rendered by the Court on May 2, 2023, in the above styled and
numbered cause, are not specific enough. Particularly, the property
description of the 40-acre property on Highway 105, Orange, Texas.
12
The Court finds that the property description [] in the attached Exhibit
“A” would more specifically describe[] the aforementioned property.
Ruling
IT IS ORDERED that the property description of the 40-acre
property on Highway 105, Orange, Texas be clarified in the Final
Decree of Divorce to include the description in the attached Exhibit
“A”.

Exhibit “A” attached to the Order provided the legal description of the property.

The Order for Turnover Relief stated that the trial court found that Chance

owned property that is not exempt under any statute from attachment, execution or

seizure, and the trial court ordered the following:

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant, CHANCE PERRY,
turn over for levy to [Plaintiff’s attorney], on or before June 28, 2024,
the following: All checking and/or savings accounts located at First
State Bank and First Financial Bank, with all documents and records
related to the property.
It is further Ordered that Respondent, CHANCE M. PERRY, not
transfer or withdraw any funds from the aforementioned accounts or
move financial institutions for the six-month period after the entry of
this Order.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff recover from Defendant
reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees in the amount of FOUR
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($4,100.00)
and all costs of this proceeding.

The trial court’s Order on Motion for Appointment of Receiver stated that the

trial court had found that proper grounds exist for the immediate appointment of a

receiver. The trial court appointed William Ford Dishman as Receiver “to take

charge and possession of sale proceeds owed to CHANCE M. PERRY, as a member

of Abundant Life, LLC, after the sale of the property” identified in the property

13
description attached to the Order “and distribute half of the proceeds to COURTNEY

L. PERRY and half of the proceeds to CHANCE M. PERRY.” The property

description attached as Exhibit “A” is the same as the Exhibit “A” attached to the

Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce. The trial court also ordered that the parties

cooperate with the Receiver, that the Receiver may enforce the Order by contempt

if the parties do not cooperate, and that the Receiver’s fee is to be paid by Chance.

Post-Judgment Pleadings and the Trial Court’s Findings

Chance filed a Motion for New Trial, which the trial court denied. At

Chance’s request, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law as

to each of the three orders it signed on July 10, 2024.2 Chance timely filed this

appeal.

Issues on Appeal

In his first issue, Chance argues the trial court erred in hearing and granting

Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement because Courtney “failed to serve proper ten-

day notice of the hearing” on Chance.3 In his second issue, he argues that the trial

2
On appeal, Chance does not specifically challenge any of the trial court’s
findings.
3
We note that elsewhere in Chance’s appellate brief he presents “ISSUE NO.
1 (Restated)[,]” wherein he asserts the trial court erred in not granting Chance’s
Motion for New Trial. See In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (an appellate
court reviews the denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion).
14
court erred in hearing and granting Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement because

Courtney failed to serve Abundant Life, LLC, a necessary party.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s turnover order and a trial court’s decision to appoint

a receiver under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller,

806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). We also review a trial court’s ruling on a post-

divorce motion for enforcement of a divorce decree for an abuse of discretion. Welch

v. Welch, No. 09-16-00249-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2596, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). “A trial court may be reversed for

abusing its discretion only when the court of appeals finds the court acted in an

unreasonable or arbitrary manner.” Buller, 806 S.W.2d at 226 (citing Downer v.

Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985)). A trial court abuses its

discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Id.

Analysis

In his first issue, Chance argues the trial court erred in hearing and granting

Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement because Courtney “failed to serve proper ten-

day notice of the hearing” on Chance. Chance contends that section 157.062 of the

Texas Family Code requires Courtney to provide Chance at least ten days’ notice of

the hearing on the Petition for Enforcement, and that, because he was only given

15
eight days’ notice of the hearing, the trial court’s orders were void and Chance was

denied due process. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.062(c).

Section 157.062(c) provides as follows:

(c) Notice of hearing on a motion for enforcement of a final order
providing for child support or possession of or access to a child, any
provision of a final order rendered against a party who has already
appeared in a suit under this title, or any provision of a temporary order
shall be given to the respondent by personal service of a copy of the
motion and notice not later than the 10th day before the date of the
hearing. For purposes of this subsection, “temporary order” includes a
temporary restraining order, standing order, injunction, and any other
temporary order rendered by a court.

Id. “Failure to give the notice required by Section 157.062 does not render the

proceeding void unless the lack of notice amounts to a denial of constitutional due

process.” In re V.L.K., No. 02-10-00315-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5912, at *10

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Ex parte Davis,

344 S.W.2d 153, 155-56 (Tex. 1961) (discussing section 157.062’s predecessor and

noting that “holding of the hearing in less than ten days after service of notice may

constitute a denial of due process[]” and that the purpose of the ten day notice

requirement is “to afford the defaulting party a reasonable opportunity to employ

counsel, gather evidence, subpoena witnesses and prepare for trial[]”) (emphasis

added)); see Ex parte Sturdivant, 544 S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

1976, orig. proceeding) (failure to afford ten days’ prior notice alone is not a denial

of due process and whether less than the ten days’ notice affords due process depends

16
on the facts and circumstances of each case); see also In re Minschke, No. 13-20-

00508-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3575, at **37-38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg May 7, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting that courts following

Davis have held that the lack of the requisite notice under section 157.062 results in

a void order if it “constitutes a denial of a party’s due process rights[]”); Target

Logistics, Inc. v. Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 465 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2015, no pet.) (noting that sister courts have found that late notice under

section 157.062(c) may render the judgment void if the notice constitutes a denial of

a party’s due process rights). “In determining whether the failure to give the required

notice amounts to a denial of constitutional due process, ‘[e]ach case must be judged

upon its own facts.’” In re Minschke, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3575, at *38 (quoting

Ex parte Sturdivant, 544 S.W.2d at 513-14).

Here, Chance was represented at the hearing by counsel, his counsel cross-

examined Courtney’s witnesses, Chance presented his own witness to testify, and

Chance testified extensively. At the hearing, Chance asked for a continuance on the

basis that Abundant Life, LLC had not been served or joined, but he did not argue

that he was unable to prepare for the proceeding. On appeal, he generally argues that

Courtney’s failure to serve him with proper notice caused him to “suffer[] prejudice

in that his ability to prepare for the hearing was harmed[,]” but he provides no

specific factual allegations regarding how he was prejudiced. On this record, we

17
cannot say that Chance was denied due process by having less than ten days’ notice

under section 157.062(c). See In re V.L.K., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5912, at **10-

11 (concluding there was not a due process violation for failing to give the required

notice where the objecting party appeared with counsel and “testified extensively”);

Ex parte Waldrep, 783 S.W.2d 332, 334 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990,

orig. proceeding) (relator ex-husband was not denied due process merely because

contempt hearing for his failure to make child support payments was held on less

than ten days’ notice where he voluntarily appeared, presented testimony, and there

was no indication that the lack of notice “had an adverse effect on the relator’s ability

to protect his interests or defense himself[]”); see also In re Minschke, 2021 Tex.

App. LEXIS 3575, at *38; Ex parte Sturdivant, 551 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex. Civ.

App.—Texarkana 1977, orig. proceeding). We overrule his first issue.

In his second issue, he argues that the trial court erred in hearing and granting

Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement because Courtney failed to serve Abundant

Life, LLC, a “necessary party.” Specifically, Chance argues that Abundant Life,

LLC was a necessary party because of “[Courtney]’s pleadings, the filing of a lis

pendens against property owned by this third party, and the appointment of a receiver

to take property owned by this third party.” According to Chance, Abundant Life,

LLC was a necessary party and should have been joined pursuant to Rule 39(a) of

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chance argues that the trial court’s appointment

18
of a receiver prejudiced the rights of Abundant Life, LLC, as well as the rights of

Chance, one of three members of Abundant Life, LLC because Chance cannot

represent Abundant Life, LLC’s interest. He further contends that Abundant Life,

LLC’s property rights were directly impacted by the trial court’s orders, despite the

fact it was not being sued, and it was not served or given notice of the proceeding.

The trial court that rendered a final decree of divorce retains power to enforce

the decree’s property division and to render a clarifying order setting forth specific

terms to enforce compliance of the order. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.002, 9.006,

9.008; Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Tex. 2009) (discussing section

9.006(a)). Section 157.062 requires that the “respondent” receive notice of the date

of the hearing on a motion to enforce. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.062(c). In

this proceeding, Chance was the respondent, not Abundant Life, LLC. Chance was

properly served with the enforcement action, and the applicable statute did not

require service upon Abundant Life, LLC. See id.

Next, we examine Chance’s argument that the trial court erred by proceeding

with the hearing on Courtney’s Petition for Enforcement without the presence of

Abundant Life, LLC because Abundant Life, LLC was a “necessary party.”4 We

review a trial court’s ruling on an issue concerning joinder of a party for an abuse of

4
The record shows that Courtney served Abundant Life, LLC with notice of
the enforcement hearing by serving its registered agent, Chance, at least three days
prior to the hearing. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(b).
19
discretion. Crawford v. XTO Energy, Inc., 509 S.W.3d 906, 910-11 (Tex. 2017).

Rule 39(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states, in relevant part:

(a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service
of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence
complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2)
he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so
situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a
practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or
(ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk
of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by
reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court
shall order that he be made a party.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 39(a). It is undisputed that after the divorce lawsuit was arbitrated,

the trial court entered a divorce decree which awarded Courtney one-half of

Chance’s share of the net proceeds of Abundant Life, LLC’s sale of its property on

Highway 105 in Orange, Texas. Abundant Life, LLC is not claiming an interest in

Courtney’s enforcement proceeding, and the proceeding did not impair Abundant

Life, LLC’s ability to sell or protect its property. See id. The trial court appointed

the receiver to ensure control of Chance’s proceeds from the future sale of the

property to satisfy the earlier judgment awarding Courtney a share of the future

proceeds. The Order on Motion for Appointment of Receiver provided that the trial

court appointed the receiver “to take charge and possession of sale proceeds owed

to CHANCE [], as a member of Abundant Life, LLC, after the sale of the property

[on Highway 105 as described in Exhibit A] and distribute half of the proceeds to

COURTNEY[,]” and the receiver was not given charge or possession of Abundant
20
Life, LLC’s assets. With respect to the turnover of Chance’s bank accounts, the trial

court found that in this “extreme case” it was necessary to satisfy the trial court’s

earlier award to Courtney of $5,000 against Chance that he had not paid to her. See

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 31.002, 64.001. We conclude the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in determining that all necessary parties were properly

cited, in proceeding with the hearing, and in rendering the Order Clarifying Final

Decree of Divorce, the Order of Turnover Relief, and the Order on Motion for

Appointment of Receiver. See Buller, 806 S.W.2d at 226; Welch, 2018 Tex. App.

LEXIS 2596, at *6. We overrule Chance’s issues on appeal, and we affirm the trial

court’s orders of July 10, 2024.

AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on June 12, 2025
Opinion Delivered December 11, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

21