## Facts

- Mohammed A.F. Ismail (husband) and Zakya Ismail (wife) were Egyptian citizens married in Egypt in July 1966.
- Shortly after marrying, they moved to Houston and lived there until 1972 while earning Ph.D. degrees.
- While living in Texas, both spouses opened Texas bank accounts that remained in existence during the marriage.
- During their time in Houston, both obtained U.S. permanent resident status, and two children were born.
- In 1972 the family returned to Egypt, moved to England the next year, and by the end of 1977 returned to Egypt, where the wife taught at Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
- While the spouses were living abroad, the husband purchased real estate in Houston that later became part of the property division.
- In 1981 the wife returned to Houston on a research fellowship; the husband accompanied her long enough to arrange housing and transportation and then returned to Egypt.
- In December 1981 the husband began custody proceedings in Egypt regarding the children, who were then in Egypt.
- In January 1982 the wife filed for divorce in a Houston district court, seeking divorce, a division of the marital estate, and custody; the husband filed a general denial.
- The parties conducted extensive discovery in Texas and in Egypt before the trial court signed a decree on August 9, 1984.
- The trial court granted the divorce and divided property largely by location: it awarded the wife the Texas real estate, her automobile, funds in Texas bank accounts, and personal property in her possession; it awarded the husband Egyptian real and personal property, interests in certain business ventures, and interests in pending lawsuits.
- The trial court also awarded the wife $15,000 as sanctions against the husband and $82,881.72 in attorney’s fees.
- The husband appealed, challenging (among other things) application of Texas quasi-community property law, choice of law, forum non conveniens, the division itself, attorney’s fees, and sanctions.

## Issues

1. May a Texas divorce court apply Texas quasi-community property law to property acquired while the spouses were domiciled outside Texas, including in a foreign jurisdiction, when the divorce is tried in Texas and Texas property is involved?
2. Should the Texas court apply Egyptian law rather than Texas law to decide marital property rights and division?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Egypt?
4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dividing the marital (including quasi-community) estate by awarding the wife the Texas real estate and the husband the Egyptian property and business interests?
5. Was the evidence sufficient to support the specific amount of attorney’s fees awarded to the wife?
6. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing $15,000 in sanctions against the husband for litigation misconduct and discovery-related noncompliance?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court’s application of Texas quasi-community property principles to the parties’ property, including assets acquired while they lived outside Texas.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to apply Texas law rather than Egyptian law in resolving the divorce-related property issues before it.
- The court affirmed the denial of the husband’s forum non conveniens request.
- The court affirmed the “just and right” property division, including the division allocating Texas assets to the wife and Egyptian assets and business interests to the husband.
- The court reversed the attorney’s-fee award and remanded because the record did not support the particular amount awarded.
- The court affirmed the $15,000 sanctions award as within the trial court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Texas’s quasi-community property statute permits a Texas divorce court to treat certain property acquired while the spouses were domiciled elsewhere as quasi-community property and to divide it in a Texas divorce.
- In a divorce properly before a Texas court, Texas may apply its own marital-property rules to divide property interests, including interests connected to Texas and property located in Texas.
- A forum non conveniens ruling in a divorce/property case is reviewed for abuse of discretion; Texas courts may retain the case where Texas has meaningful contacts and Texas property is at stake.
- A trial court has broad discretion to make a “just and right” division of the marital estate; a division based in part on the location of assets may be upheld if it is not arbitrary or unreasonable on the record.
- An attorney’s-fee award must be supported by evidence showing the requested fees are reasonable and necessary; a specific fee amount lacking evidentiary support requires reversal and remand on that issue.
- Discovery and case-management sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and may be upheld when tied to a party’s acts or omissions and supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that Texas could apply its quasi-community property law and Texas law generally to divide the Ismails’ marital estate in a Texas divorce despite the spouses’ foreign citizenship and periods of domicile abroad, affirmed the denial of forum non conveniens and the property division and sanctions, but reversed and remanded because the evidence did not support the precise attorney’s-fee amount awarded.


Ismail v. Ismail, 702 S.W.2d 216 (1985)