## Facts

- John Geesbreght (husband) and Mary Lee Geesbreght (wife) separated in January 1976 after Mary Lee left the marital home in Fort Worth, Texas.
- John was a physician who organized and operated a successful medical-staffing business known as “Emergency Medicine,” which provided doctors to hospitals under contract.
- During the marriage, John held shares in Emergency Medicine. Under the business arrangements, John had the right to sell his stock to another doctor.
- If John sold his shares, the purchasing doctor could continue serving the hospitals under Emergency Medicine’s contracts so long as the doctors’ work remained satisfactory; each hospital also retained the right to cancel its contract if performance was not satisfactory.
- After leaving Texas, Mary Lee filed an Illinois action seeking separate maintenance and custody (Cook County). John later filed a Texas divorce action in Tarrant County.
- The Illinois case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Before it was reinstated, Mary Lee appeared in the Texas case and sought temporary relief regarding the children (temporary managing conservatorship).
- The Texas trial court granted a no-fault divorce (insupportability), awarded custody of the minor children to John, and divided the community estate.
- In valuing John’s interest in Emergency Medicine for purposes of the community-property division, the trial court used the shares’ book value and assigned no separate value for the business’s goodwill.
- Mary Lee appealed, arguing (1) Texas lacked jurisdiction due to the earlier Illinois proceeding and (2) the community-property division was erroneous because the valuation of John’s Emergency Medicine interest was improper.

## Issues

1. Did the Texas court lack or lose jurisdiction because Mary Lee had filed an earlier Illinois separate-maintenance and custody action, and did Mary Lee waive any jurisdictional complaint by appearing in Texas and requesting affirmative relief?
2. Did the trial court err in valuing and dividing the community estate by treating John’s Emergency Medicine stock as worth only its book value and by assigning no value to goodwill tied to the established business and its hospital-contract relationships?

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (Fort Worth) affirmed the portions of the judgment granting the divorce and awarding custody to John.
- The court held that any jurisdictional complaint was waived when Mary Lee appeared in the Texas case and sought affirmative relief after the Illinois suit had been dismissed; the Texas court’s jurisdiction was secure at that point and was not defeated by the later reinstatement of the Illinois case.
- The court reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment dividing the community property, requiring a new trial limited to property division and valuation.

## Legal Principles

- A party may waive a complaint about jurisdiction by making a general appearance and seeking affirmative relief in the forum court rather than timely pursuing a proper jurisdictional plea.
- When another state’s law is not proved and the trial court is not asked to take judicial notice of it, the Texas court may proceed without applying unproved foreign law.
- Texas does not recognize a cause of action for “separate maintenance” as such; disputes between spouses are ordinarily addressed through divorce and related orders.
- In a “just and right” division of community property, the trial court must base the division on a legally and factually supported valuation of major community assets.
- A spouse’s ownership interest in a professional or closely held business may have value beyond book value; goodwill and the economic value of an established, reputable operation can be relevant to valuation and must be addressed when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

In *Geesbreght v. Geesbreght*, the Fort Worth court upheld the Texas divorce and custody rulings and rejected Mary Lee’s jurisdiction challenge because she waived it by appearing and requesting temporary relief after the Illinois case was dismissed. However, the court set aside the community-property division and sent the case back for a new trial on property matters because the valuation of John’s Emergency Medicine ownership interest—based on book value with no value assigned to goodwill—required reconsideration to reach a proper “just and right” division.


Geesbreght v. Geesbreght, 570 S.W.2d 427 (1978)