in the Interest of A.M.H. and R.Q.D., Children


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00908-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.H. AND R.Q.D., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 310th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-61005 MEMORANDUM OPINION Kathy appeals the trial court’s final divorce decree. She contends the trial court committed reversible error when it (1) found the prenuptial agreement to be enforceable; (2) made its just and right division of the parties’ estate; and (3) excluded expert testimony. We affirm. BACKGROUND Kathy and Michael met through a website called VietSingle in late 2005; he was 35 years old and she was about 24 years old at the time. Michael lived in Houston and Kathy lived in Vietnam. They communicated via telephone regularly. During their courtship, Michael told Kathy that he wanted his future wife to sign a prenuptial agreement to protect his assets. Michael and Kathy met for the first time in person when Michael traveled to Vietnam for Chinese New Year in 2007. After the visit, Michael and Kathy continued to talk to each other daily. One of the topics of conversation was Michael’s requirement that Kathy sign a prenuptial agreement. In the summer of 2007, Michael traveled to Vietnam and he and Kathy had an engagement party. During this stay, Michael presented Kathy with a prenuptial agreement, which was drafted by Michael’s attorney Joseph Bui. Kathy had the agreement translated into Vietnamese because she does not speak or read English. Kathy requested a change to the prenuptial agreement Michael presented to her, but no revision was made at the time. After the engagement, Michael returned to the United States. Bui prepared an application for Kathy’s K1 90-day fiancée visa, and she arrived in the United States in June 2008. In August 2008, Kathy told Michael she was pregnant with his child. Michael told Kathy that she still needed to sign the prenuptial agreement, and she understood Michael would not marry her unless she signed the agreement. According to Michael, one paragraph stating that “[f]uture earnings would remain separate” was deleted in the prenuptial agreement per Kathy’s request on August 5, 2008. As Kathy’s 90-day visa was about to expire, Michael found an attorney who spoke Vietnamese in the phone book. He drove Kathy to attorney Trang-Dai Vu Hoang’s office for a consultation, which lasted for one to two hours. Michael paid Hoang’s $100 consultation fee, but he was not present during the consultation. After the consultation, Kathy and Michael signed the prenuptial agreement in Hoang’s office on August 28, 2008. Michael and Kathy got married on September 3, 2008. Bui helped Kathy with 2 the paperwork to change her immigration status from a fiancée visa to permanent residency. As part of the process, Michael executed an affidavit of support (Form I- 864) as Kathy’s sponsor. Kathy obtained her Green Card in 2010; she became a United States citizen a few years later. During the marriage, Kathy and Michael had two children born in ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals