## Facts

- Karen Richards and James Richards were married, and Karen filed for divorce.
- The trial court granted the divorce and divided the community estate between the spouses.
- As part of the division, the trial court awarded James five boats from the community property.
- James appealed, arguing the trial court improperly distributed the community property (among other complaints about the decree’s property-related rulings).
- While the appeal was pending, evidence showed James sold two of the boats awarded to him.
- James also had a contract to sell a third boat and was receiving monthly payments from that sale.
- James testified he sold the boats because he was almost bankrupt and his liabilities exceeded his assets, but he did not provide financial documents supporting those claims.
- In an affidavit, James also stated he sold the boats because the boat market was declining and the cost of maintaining the boats exceeded their value.
- Karen moved to dismiss the appeal under the acceptance-of-the-benefits doctrine, arguing James’s sale of the boats and receipt of proceeds was inconsistent with his attempt to overturn the property division.

## Issues

1. Whether James’s sale of boats awarded to him in the divorce decree and receipt/use of proceeds constituted acceptance of the judgment’s benefits that barred his appeal and rendered it moot.
2. Whether James proved an exception to the acceptance-of-the-benefits doctrine, including (a) financial duress or economic circumstances compelling acceptance, or (b) that reversal on the issues appealed could not possibly affect his right to the benefits he accepted.

## Decision

- The court granted Karen’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal as moot.
- The court held Karen met her burden to show James accepted the benefits of the divorce judgment by selling boats awarded to him and receiving proceeds (including installment payments for a third sale).
- The court held James did not establish the financial-duress exception because his testimony and affidavit were not supported by financial records showing he had no real choice but to sell.
- The court held James did not establish the “no possible effect” exception because his appellate complaints attacked the property division, so a reversal could require a different distribution affecting the assets and value he had already taken.
- Because acceptance of benefits barred the appeal, the court did not reach the merits of James’s challenges to the divorce decree.

## Legal Principles

- A litigant who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a judgment is generally estopped from challenging that judgment on appeal; the appeal is then moot and must be dismissed.
- The doctrine commonly applies in divorce cases when a party accepts assets awarded by the decree while seeking to overturn the decree’s property division.
- The appellee bears the burden to show the appellant accepted benefits of the judgment.
- An appellate court may consider affidavits and other evidence to decide jurisdictional facts relevant to mootness.
- Two narrow exceptions may allow an appeal despite acceptance of benefits: (1) acceptance resulted from financial duress or similar economic circumstances, or (2) reversal on the issues appealed could not possibly affect the appellant’s right to the benefits accepted.
- The appellant bears the burden to prove an exception, and general or unsupported assertions of financial hardship are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed James Richards’s divorce appeal as moot because he accepted the divorce decree’s benefits by selling boats awarded to him and receiving the proceeds, and he failed to prove either that financial duress compelled the sales or that a reversal of the challenged property division could not possibly affect the benefits he had already taken.


Richards v. Richards, 371 S.W.3d 412 (2012)