CROSSOVER: The Anniversary Rule: Calculating ‘Within One Year’ Deadlines for MSAs and Custody Modifications

JLV Asset Management, Inc. v. The Chicken Place, Inc., 07-24-00346-CV, March 12, 2026.

On appeal from 146th District Court, Bell County, Texas.

Synopsis

Under Texas law, a contractual obligation to perform “within one year” of a specific date includes the calendar anniversary of that date. Furthermore, while a trial court errs by submitting the interpretation of an unambiguous contract to a jury, such error is harmless if the jury’s finding comports with the correct legal construction of the instrument.

Relevance to Family Law

For the family law practitioner, the “anniversary rule” is a critical tool for interpreting Mediated Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and Divorce Decrees. Whether calculating the window for a property buyout, the expiration of a right of first refusal, or the timeline for a residency restriction to lift, this case confirms that performance on the actual anniversary date is timely. It prevents “gotcha” litigation where an opposing party claims a payment or action was due 365 days later (the day before the anniversary) rather than on the calendar date itself.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

JLV Asset Management sold a restaurant to The Chicken Place via a promissory note effective January 2, 2017. The note provided a $250,000 discount if the debt was paid “within one year of the Effective Date.” The Chicken Place tendered the full payment on January 2, 2018. JLV refused the discount, asserting the payment was exactly one day late. Concurrently, a dispute arose regarding gift card reimbursements; despite an email from JLV approving a specific submission method, JLV ceased reimbursements after the second quarter.

At trial, the court declined to rule on the contract’s meaning as a matter of law and instead submitted the interpretation of “within one year” and the adequacy of gift card documentation to the jury. The jury found for The Chicken Place. Post-verdict, JLV moved for a mistrial, alleging a juror failed to disclose an acquaintance with a key witness. The trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for the discount and gift card damages.

Issues Decided

1. Does “within one year of the Effective Date” include the first anniversary of that date?
2. Is it reversible error for a trial court to submit the construction of an unambiguous contract to a jury?
3. Does an email acknowledging and accepting a specific method of documentation for reimbursements constitute evidence sufficient to support a breach of contract claim?
4. Is a mistrial required when a juror unintentionally fails to recognize a witness’s name during voir dire?

Rules Applied

• The Anniversary Rule: When a contract measures time in years, Texas courts apply the calendar-anniversary method by default. Apache Corp. v. Apollo Expl., LLC, 670 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. 2023).
• Contract Interpretation: The construction of an unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. URI, Inc. v. Kleberg County, 543 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018).
• Harmless Error Rule: Submitting a legal question to a jury is harmless if the jury answers the question as the court should have. Grohman v. Kahlig, 318 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. 2010); Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1).
• Sufficiency of Evidence: A finding is supported if more than a scintilla of evidence exists, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005).

Application

The Court of Appeals first addressed the “anniversary rule.” It noted that while the parties defined “year” specifically for interest calculations (using both 360-day and 365-day counts), they left the term “year” undefined in the discount provision. Under the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Apache Corp., “years” are interpreted by the calendar-anniversary method unless the contract clearly states otherwise. The court rejected JLV’s argument that the preposition “within” changed this calculation, holding that “within one year” simply means the action must occur before the anniversary period expires.

Regarding the jury charge, the court found that the trial court erred by treating the unambiguous contract as a jury issue. However, because the jury correctly determined that the January 2, 2018 payment was timely, the error did not result in an improper judgment. On the gift card issue, the court found JLV’s email—which thanked the buyer for the submission method and agreed to the criteria—was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that the buyer had satisfied its contractual obligations.

Holding

The court held that a payment made on the first anniversary of a contract’s effective date is made “within one year” of that date as a matter of law.

The court held that while the trial court committed a legal error by submitting the contract’s interpretation to the jury, that error was harmless because the jury’s verdict aligned with the correct legal construction of the promissory note.

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial, as the juror’s failure to disclose an acquaintance was not intentional and did not result in probable injury.

Practical Application

Texas family litigators should cite JLV Asset Management when enforcing MSAs that involve performance windows. If an MSA requires a spouse to vacate a residence “within 30 days” or pay a settlement “within one year,” this case provides the appellate bedrock to argue that the anniversary date is the deadline. Strategically, if you represent the party performing, ensure they perform by the anniversary date. If you represent the party receiving payment and desire an earlier cutoff, you must draft the order or agreement to state “no later than [Date]” or “excluding the anniversary date.”

Checklists

Drafting Performance Windows in MSAs and Decrees

• Avoid relative time frames (e.g., “within one year”) if you want a date-certain deadline.
• Explicitly define whether “year” means 365 days or the calendar anniversary.
• Include a time-of-day deadline (e.g., “by 5:00 p.m. CST”) to avoid midnight-tendering disputes.
• Specify whether the counting period includes or excludes the “Effective Date” or “Date of Signing.”

Litigating Deadline Disputes

• Identify whether the contract/order uses different definitions of “year” in different sections (the “holistic” approach).
• Determine if the “anniversary rule” from Apache Corp. and JLV Asset Management applies.
• Object to jury questions that ask the jury to interpret the meaning of an unambiguous decree or MSA.
• Review course-of-performance evidence (like emails) that might indicate a waiver of strict documentation requirements.

Citation

JLV Asset Management, Inc. v. The Chicken Place, Inc., No. 07-24-00346-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 12, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Link to Full Opinion

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce or custody cases to defeat “technicality-based” enforcement actions. If an Obligor pays a property settlement on the one-year anniversary of the decree, and the Obligee attempts to claim a breach to trigger an acceleration clause or attorney’s fees, JLV Asset Management is your primary defense. Moreover, this case clarifies the “harmless error” hurdle on appeal: if a trial judge refuses to construe a decree as a matter of law and lets a jury (or themselves in a bench trial) “decide” what it means, the appellate court will only reverse if the interpretation itself was wrong. Process errors in contract construction are secondary to the correctness of the final result.

~~6184632d-6108-4d46-a80f-49be11dae8e4~~