A Texas court has upheld a ruling in a divorce case that involves a dispute over retirement funds. The Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District, affirmed the trial court's decision awarding Larmetrice Nunnally-Williams $9,393.10 from Curtis Tyrone Williams. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the jurisdictional issues surrounding divorce settlements and the statute of limitations related to enforcement actions.
The case, Curtis Tyrone Williams v. Larmetrice Nunnally-Williams, was filed under docket number 04-25-00505-CV. The court's opinion, delivered on August 12, 2026, addresses the complexities of divorce settlements and the legal obligations that arise from them. It highlights the importance of understanding how statutes of limitations apply in these cases and the responsibilities of both parties involved.
Background
Curtis Tyrone Williams and Larmetrice Nunnally-Williams were married on December 29, 2006, and lived together until June 21, 2015. Nunnally filed for divorce on August 18, 2015, and the trial court finalized the divorce on June 21, 2017. As part of the divorce decree, Nunnally was awarded a portion of Williams's retirement benefits from his employment with the United States Army, specifically from his Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). This amount totaled $8,470.57, which included benefits earned during their marriage.
However, complications arose when Nunnally later discovered that only a small portion of the awarded funds was transferred to her account. On October 25, 2023, she received a letter from Williams's TSP stating that while she was entitled to $9,459.26, only $512.87 had been transferred. In response, Nunnally filed a petition for enforcement of a constructive trust and breach of fiduciary duty against Williams on August 21, 2024, claiming he had withdrawn funds that were rightfully hers.
The Ruling
The court ruled that Williams's argument regarding the statute of limitations was not valid. Williams claimed that Nunnally's petition was barred by section 9.003(a) of the Texas Family Code, which has a two-year statute of limitations for enforcing divorce settlements. However, the court found that Williams did not preserve this issue for appeal, as he did not properly raise it in his initial response to Nunnally's petition.
The court stated, "We conclude that Williams failed to preserve this issue for appeal, we affirm."
The judges presiding over the case included Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Irene Rios, and Justice Lori I. Valenzuela. The court emphasized that the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional matter but rather an affirmative defense that must be adequately pleaded and proven by the defendant. Since Williams did not conclusively establish that Nunnally's suit was barred by the statute of limitations, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for future divorce cases in Texas. It clarifies that the statute of limitations concerning the enforcement of divorce settlements does not automatically bar a court from hearing a case. Instead, it is the responsibility of the defendant to raise and prove such defenses appropriately. This decision may encourage individuals in similar situations to pursue enforcement of their rights without fear of being barred by limitations if they follow the correct legal procedures.
The ruling also reinforces the idea that courts will not automatically dismiss cases based on procedural technicalities if the substantive issues are valid. This may lead to more equitable outcomes in divorce settlements, especially in cases involving complex financial matters like retirement benefits.
What's Next
Williams has the option to appeal this ruling to a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending related cases. The outcome of this case may influence how future divorce settlements are enforced and the obligations of both parties in similar disputes.