Pullen v. Pullen, 02-25-00304-CV, February 26, 2026.
On appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Second Court of Appeals granted an unopposed motion to set aside a trial court’s property division pursuant to TRAP 42.1(a)(2)(B) and remanded for a new division in accordance with the parties’ partial settlement agreement. Notably, the court affirmed the portions of the decree granting the divorce and child-related orders, confirming the appellate court’s authority to perform a surgical remand of the marital estate while leaving the status of the parties and SAPCR orders undisturbed.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law litigator, this case reinforces a critical strategic mechanism: the ability to utilize Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) to effectuate a post-judgment property settlement without risking the finality of the divorce itself or any favorable SAPCR provisions. While the “one final judgment” rule and the prohibition against severing a divorce from the property division are staples of trial-level practice, the appellate courts maintain the discretion to affirm the decretal portion of the judgment granting the divorce while remanding the estate for a new division. This provides a clear path for parties who have settled their financial disputes pending appeal but wish to maintain the stability of their conservatorship and possession orders.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The trial court signed a final decree of divorce on March 28, 2025. Following the perfection of the appeal, the Second Court of Appeals set the matter for submission on February 24, 2026. Just four days prior to the submission date, the Appellant filed an “Unopposed Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Remand,” notifying the court for the first time that the parties had entered into a “Partial Settlement Agreement.” The parties specifically requested that the appellate court set aside only the division of property and remand the cause for the trial court to render a new division consistent with their agreement.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the appellate court could, upon the motion of the parties under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B), set aside and remand the property division portion of a divorce decree without reaching the merits, while simultaneously affirming the remainder of the decree regarding the divorce and child-related orders.
Rules Applied
The court primarily applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B), which allows an appellate court to set aside a trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings in accordance with an agreement of the parties. Additionally, the court looked to TRAP 43.2(a) and (d) regarding the types of judgments an appellate court may render.
The court also relied on the procedural precedent established in In re Marriage of Cruey and Gamboa v. Gamboa. These cases clarify that while a trial court cannot sever a divorce from the division of the community estate, an appellate court has the authority to affirm a divorce (and unchallenged SAPCR orders) while reversing and remanding only the property division when the divorce itself is not attacked on appeal.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the procedural posture created by the parties’ eleventh-hour settlement. Because no opinion had yet issued, the court possessed the authority under Rule 42.1(c) to dispose of the appeal according to the parties’ agreement. The court performed a bifurcated analysis of the decree. First, it identified the unchallenged portions of the judgment—the granting of the divorce and the orders concerning conservatorship, possession, access, and support. Because these were not the subject of the settlement’s “set aside” request, and because Texas law allows for the affirmation of a divorce decree in parts when the marital status is not under attack, the court affirmed those segments.
Second, the court addressed the property division. By granting the unopposed motion, the court exercised its power to set aside the property division “without regard to the merits.” This is a crucial distinction for practitioners; it allows the parties to vacate a potentially lopsided or legally erroneous trial court division in favor of their private agreement without the appellate court ever having to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.
Holding
The Court of Appeals granted the unopposed motion to set aside the judgment and remand. The court affirmed the portions of the final decree of divorce that granted the divorce and established the orders for conservatorship, possession, access, and child and medical support.
In a separate holding, the court set aside the terms of the final decree addressing the division of the marital estate—including the determination and confirmation of separate property—without regard to the merits. The court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to make a new property division in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.
Practical Application
This opinion serves as a roadmap for “settling on the steps” of the Court of Appeals. When a property division is appealed, the parties are not locked into a binary “affirm or reverse” outcome. If a settlement is reached, counsel should utilize Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) specifically to target the property division for remand. This avoids the risk of a full reversal that might inadvertently disturb favorable custody rulings or the legal status of the divorce. It is essential that the motion and the subsequent appellate judgment clearly delineate which portions of the decree are being affirmed and which are being set aside to ensure the trial court’s jurisdiction on remand is properly limited to the property issues.
Checklists
Executing a Post-Appeal Partial Settlement
- Ensure the settlement agreement explicitly defines which portions of the decree are to be set aside (e.g., property division, separate property confirmation) and which are to be affirmed (e.g., the divorce itself, SAPCR).
- Verify that the motion to set aside and remand is “unopposed” or “joint” to qualify under TRAP 42.1(a)(2).
- Draft the motion to include a specific request for a “set aside without regard to the merits” to prevent the appellate court from conducting a standard review.
- Include a request for the immediate issuance of the mandate if the parties require the trial court to render the new judgment quickly.
Jurisdictional Preservation on Remand
- Confirm that neither party is attacking the “decretal portion” of the judgment granting the divorce; otherwise, a partial affirmance may be legally unavailable.
- Ensure the Partial Settlement Agreement is attached as an exhibit to the appellate motion to provide a basis for the remand.
- Prepare a proposed “Final Judgment on Remand” for the trial court that incorporates the settlement terms while referencing the appellate court’s partial affirmance of the original decree’s SAPCR and divorce provisions.
Citation
Pullen v. Pullen, No. 02-25-00304-CV, 2026 WL [Pending] (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 26, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~231c22d8-44be-4ca0-9d78-849a78cb8d12~~
Share this content: