Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00370-CV ___________________________ CHRIS WILLIAM RULLMAN, Appellant V. SHANNON LEE RULLMAN, Appellee On Appeal from the 325th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 325-748641-24 Before Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Chris Rullman appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee Shannon Rullman’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his suit for divorce based on its finding that the parties were not domiciled in or residents of Texas. In a single issue, Chris 1 argues that the trial court erred by dismissing the suit. Because we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the suit, we affirm. I. Background Shannon and Chris were married in Idaho in 1992. In 2010, they moved to Colorado, where they lived together as spouses until 2023 and where Chris remained through the filing of this suit. He has never lived in Texas. During their marriage, Shannon and Chris purchased homes throughout the United States and rented them out; they jointly owned multiple rental properties in Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, and Texas. In 2018, Shannon and Chris purchased a house in Fort Worth, Texas. They eventually rented the Fort Worth house to their adult daughter who attended Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth. Shannon and Chris had TCU football season tickets and would often travel to Fort Worth to attend football games, staying with their daughter at their rental. Throughout their marriage, Shannon and Chris traveled together “extensively” to various locations, including Hawaii and other states. 1 Because they share the same surname, we refer to the parties by their first names. 2 At some point, Shannon and Chris began having marital problems. In August 2023, Shannon went to Fort Worth and stayed with their daughter at the Fort Worth house; Shannon and Chris dispute precisely when Shannon went to Fort Worth, the length of time that she was in Fort Worth, the reason why she went to Fort Worth, and whether she had permanently moved to Fort Worth at that time. Nevertheless, throughout the fall of 2023, Shannon and Chris continued working on their marriage. During that time, they continued traveling together, including to Texas, and Shannon and Chris would return to their home in Colorado. In late December 2023, Shannon and Chris had a “falling out,” and on December 21, Shannon left their home in Colorado and drove to Fort Worth to stay with their daughter at the Fort Worth house. Shannon and Chris again dispute the reason that Shannon went to Fort Worth, how long she stayed in Fort Worth, and whether she had gone to Fort Worth intending to make it her permanent residence. On March 21, 2024, Chris filed an original petition for divorce in Tarrant County. 2 He alleged that Shannon had been a resident of Tarrant County for the preceding ninety-day period and had been living in Texas for the preceding six-month period. Shannon then filed a special appearance and a plea to the jurisdiction. In it, she asserted that she was not a resident of Texas but was a resident of Colorado, and she argued that she had not lived in Texas for the six months preceding 2 Chris had consulted with two attorneys in Colorado to discuss the possibility of filing for divorce in Colorado, but he never filed in Colorado. Shannon, however, later filed for divorce in Colorado. 3 commencement of the divorce action and that she had not intended to live or reside in Texas. On June 21, 2024, Chris filed a first amended petition for divorce, and Shannon subsequently filed an amended special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction, raising the same arguments. The trial court—a visiting judge—heard Shannon’s amended special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction and denied it, and the parties continued to litigate their divorce, with Shannon filing a counterpetition for divorce. On May 9, 2025, Shannon filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the trial court to reconsider its denial of her special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction. After hearing Shannon’s motion, the trial court—the presiding judge—granted it, granted her plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed the divorce suit. Chris submitted a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law that the trial court made and filed. Among its findings, the trial court found that Shannon had not been a domiciliary of Texas or a resident of Tarrant County for the requisite statutory periods. See Tex. Fam. Code § 6.301. This appeal followed. II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law Section 6.301 of the Texas Family Code provides that a suit for divorce may not be maintained in Texas unless, at the time the suit was filed, either the petitioner or respondent has been (1) a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period 4 and (2) a resident of the county in which the suit was filed for the preceding ninety- day period. Id. Although the domicile and residency requirements are not jurisdictional, they are necessary qualifications for those seeking to maintain an action for divorce. Stallworth v. Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d 338, 345 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 86 S.W.3d 272, 276 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). “The public policy behind these requirements is to prevent forum shopping by divorce litigants.” Alwazzan v. Alwazzan, 596 S.W.3d 789, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). The test for both residence and domicile typically involves an inquiry into a person’s intent. Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322, 326 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); see Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex. 1964) (stating that “[v]olition, intention[,] and action are all elements to be considered . . . in denoting the permanent residence or domicile”). To establish that a person is a domiciliary of Texas, the person must reside in Texas intending to make it his or her fixed and permanent home. Snyder v. Pitts, 241 S.W.2d 136, 139 (Tex. 1951) (orig. proceeding); In re Swart, 581 S.W.3d 844, 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, orig. proceeding). Under the Family Code, being a “resident of the county in which suit is filed” means actual, physical, continuous living in the county of suit for the specified ninety-day period, coupled with a good-faith intent to remain and make that county home, and the intent must be accompanied by some act done in the execution of the intent. Alwazzan, 596 S.W.3d at 809–10; Wilson v. Wilson, 189 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1945, no writ). 5 Questions of domicile and residency as qualification for a divorce action are fact issues to be determined by the trial court, and the trial court’s determinations will be left undisturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Barnard v. Barnard, 133 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles—that is, if its act is arbitrary or unreasonable. Walker v. Baptist St. Anthony’s Hosp., 703 S.W.3d 339, 343 (Tex. 2024); Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838–39 (Tex. 2004). A trial court also abuses its discretion by ruling without supporting evidence. In re AutoZoners, LLC, 694 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); Transcor Astra Grp. S.A. v. Petrobras Am. Inc., 650 S.W.3d 462, 482 (Tex. 2022). But no abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court decides based on conflicting evidence as long as some substantive and probative evidence supports its decision. Nath v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., 446 S.W.3d 355, 361 (Tex. 2014); Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2009); see Boyd v. Davidovich, No. 05-23-00457-CV, 2024 WL 4457021, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 10, 2024, no pet.). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, legal and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal but are relevant factors. See Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991); In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 773 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.). A reviewing court must first determine (1) whether the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion and then (2) whether the trial court’s decision was arbitrary and 6 capricious. H.E.B., L.L.C. v. Ardinger, 369 S.W.3d 496, 506 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); Edwards v. Mid-Continent Off. Distribs., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833, 835 n.6, 836 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied). The applicable sufficiency review comes into play in answering the first question. C.F., 576 S.W.3d at 773. In answering the second question, we analyze whether, based on the evidence, the trial court made a reasonable decision. Id.; see also In re J.Y.O., 709 S.W.3d 485, 497 n.92 (Tex. 2024). When reviewing an assertion that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding, we must consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable factfinder could, and we must disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas, 228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. 2007); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). Anything more than a scintilla of evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding. Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724, 727–28 (Tex. 2003). More than a scintilla exists if the evidence rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions. Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645, 658 (Tex. 2018). We indulge “every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence” in support of the challenged finding. Id. When reviewing an assertion that the evidence is factually insufficient to support a finding, we set aside the finding only if, after considering and weighing all the pertinent record evidence, we determine that the credible evidence supporting the finding is so weak, or so contrary to the overwhelming weight of all the evidence, that 7 the finding should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 770–76 (Tex. 2003) (citing Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) (op. on reh’g)); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). III. Discussion Chris contends that “[l]egally or factually insufficient evidence exists to support” the following trial-court findings: 3. At the time [Chris] filed this suit, Shannon . . . had been neither a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six months nor a resident of Tarrant County for the preceding ninety days. 4. Shannon[’s] . . . visit to Texas in August of 2023 was a temporary absence from Colorado and did not change her domicile to Texas. 5. Shannon . . . was not present in Tarrant County for the ninety days prior to the original petition and she had no intention to remain or make Tarrant County her home. 6. Shannon . . . was domiciled in Colorado through December 21, 2023. 7. Shannon . . . and Chris . . . lived in Colorado as spouses through December 21, 2023. 8. Shannon . . . was not domiciled in Texas for the six months prior to the First Amended Original Petition for Divorce. 9. Shannon[’s] . . . temporary stay in Tarrant County, Texas, during the spring of 2024 ended prior to June 21, 2024. 10. At the time Chris . . . filed his First Amended Original Petition for Divorce on June 21, 2024, Shannon . . . had been neither a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six months nor a resident of Tarrant County for the preceding ninety days. 8 11. At the time Chris . . . filed his First Amended Original Petition for Divorce on June 21, 2024, [he] had been neither a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six months nor a resident of Tarrant County for the preceding ninety days. Chris argues that the record does not support these findings and that the trial court erred by dismissing his divorce suit.3 We disagree. A. The Evidence In support of his argument that Shannon met the domicile and residency requirements, Chris submitted the following evidence: • Chris testified that both he and Shannon owned the Fort Worth house. • The utilities for the Fort Worth house were in Shannon’s name. • Chris testified that prior to and through August 2023, Shannon had talked to him about moving to Texas, and she shared with him listings of multimillion-dollar houses for sale in Fort Worth, which he claimed was not “normal.” • Chris testified that beginning in August 2023, Shannon left Colorado and stayed in the Fort Worth house and that she only periodically returned to Colorado but traveled most of that fall. 3 Chris also argues that the ninety-day residency requirement referenced in the trial court’s findings is “irrelevant” because “Section 6.302 controls.” Under Section 6.302, “[i]f one spouse has been a domiciliary of this state for at least the last six months, a spouse domiciled in another state . . . may file a suit for divorce in the county in which the domiciliary spouse resides at the time the petition is filed.” Tex. Fam. Code § 6.302. The parties do not dispute that Chris was domiciled in another state. Thus, according to Chris, he could file his divorce suit in Tarrant County because, at the time he filed both his original and amended divorce petitions, Shannon resided in Tarrant County and had been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six- month period. See id. Even assuming that Section 6.302 “controls,” the evidence demonstrates that neither party met the domicile or residency requirements. See id. §§ 6.301–.302. 9 • Shannon’s travels “always brought her back to Texas.” • Shannon and Chris “ceased to live together as spouses on or about” December 21, 2023, and after that date, Shannon never returned to live in their Colorado house. • In August 2023, Shannon had some renovations done to the Fort Worth house. • Shannon had a vehicle with Texas license plates registered in her name in Texas. The auto insurance policy for her vehicle was also in Texas. • Chris testified that Shannon received mail and bills in Texas. • Shannon had opened a bank account in only her name in Texas, and the January 2024 bank statements showed that she was “spending money” in Texas at that time. • On another bank account, Shannon changed her address from her and Chris’s Colorado address to the Fort Worth address. • Shannon had a therapist in Texas and attended doctors’ appointments in Texas. • Shannon’s social media listed Fort Worth as her residence. Shannon, however, argued that she was not domiciled in Texas for six months prior to Chris’s filing the divorce suit. In support of her argument, the trial court heard the following: • Shannon testified that she never intended to be domiciled in Texas. In her counterpetition for divorce, she stated that “neither party ha[d] been a resident of Texas for six months or Tarrant County for 90 days preceding the filing of this action.” • In August 2023, Shannon visited Fort Worth for three weeks to watch their daughter’s dog at the Fort Worth house while she was in Hawaii and 10 then to help their daughter “do a few things in the house” after she returned. • In September 2023, Chris traveled to Fort Worth to attend a TCU football game with Shannon and their daughter, and then he and Shannon went to their house in Florida together. • Shannon and Chris had season tickets to TCU football games in the fall of 2023. Shannon testified that they would stay at the Fort Worth house while they were in town for the games and then travel back to Colorado together. • During the fall of 2023, Chris and Shannon traveled together to Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho, and Florida. • Shannon testified that she resided in Colorado from the end of August 2023 until December 21, 2023. • Chris confirmed that between August 2023 and December 2023, Shannon would return to Colorado and stay with him in their house, and the only times she was in Texas during that time was when they went to the TCU football games together. He testified that he and Shannon had been “trying to work on” their marriage. • In December 2023, Shannon and Chris had planned on spending Christmas with their daughter in Fort Worth. Shannon decided to go to Fort Worth a few days early, and on December 21, 2023, she left their Colorado house with clothing, toiletries, and Christmas gifts and drove to the Fort Worth house. She did not take anything from Colorado “to set up a residence” in Fort Worth. • Shannon testified that when she left Colorado on December 21, 2023, she believed that Chris would meet her and their daughter in Fort Worth “a couple of days later.” Chris ultimately decided not to go to Fort Worth that Christmas. Instead, he canceled Shannon’s credit card after she left. • Their daughter testified that from August 2023 through June 2024, Shannon lived in the Fort Worth house. She explained that she had been renting the house from Shannon and Chris and that she paid rent directly to Chris. 11 • Their daughter testified that from December 21, 2023, until April 2024, Shannon’s visits to the Fort Worth house had been “very intermittent” and that after December 21, 2023, Shannon had been “basically couch-surfing” with family and friends. • Shannon also testified that she had been “couch-hopping” with friends and family in different states. She explained that she had not had the “resources” or “enough funds to establish [her] own residence.” • Their daughter confirmed that Shannon went back to Colorado during the spring of 2024. She explained that she had known where Shannon was because she was able to track her cell-phone location. • Their daughter had always believed that Colorado was Shannon’s home and that Shannon’s intention was to go back to Colorado. She testified that at no point did she ever consider Shannon to be living with her in the Fort Worth house or in Texas. • Chris and Shannon filed joint income tax returns in Colorado for tax year 2023. Their federal tax return listed the Colorado house as their home address. Chris’s Colorado tax return also listed the address, and the residency section showed that they were “Full-Year” residents as opposed to “Part-Year or Nonresident.” • Shannon retained her Colorado driver’s license. • Shannon was registered to vote in Colorado from August 2023 through June 2024. • Shannon testified that she had considered herself to still be “in the marriage” with Chris until April 2024. • Shannon filed for divorce in Colorado. • Shannon testified that she moved to the Pacific Northwest in April 2024 and had been living in Oregon since November 2024. And to “clarif[y]” some of Chris’s evidence, Shannon points to the following evidence: 12 • Shannon testified that it was her responsibility in Rullman Properties to initiate service for some of the utilities at her and Chris’s rental houses, so she would call and “put them in [her] name.” • The utilities for the Fort Worth house had been in Shannon’s name since 2019—approximately four years prior to the date that Chris claims she became a domiciliary of Texas. • Both Shannon and Chris testified that some of the utilities for their other rental houses were also in Shannon’s name, including their house in Florida. But Chris confirmed that he was not “trying to claim” that Shannon was “a resident of Florida because of that.” • Chris and Shannon’s 2023 joint income tax return showed that the August 2023 renovations to the Fort Worth house were not the first: they had previously done renovations and made improvements in 2019 and 2021—years before Chris claims Shannon became a domiciliary of Texas. • All of Shannon’s vehicles had been registered in Texas since 2021— approximately two years before Chris claims she became a domiciliary of Texas. • Chris acknowledged that it was cheaper to register vehicles in Texas and that that was why Shannon’s vehicles had been registered in Texas since 2021. • Both Shannon and Chris were listed as drivers on the Texas auto insurance policy, which was effective February 2, 2023—months before Chris claims Shannon became a domiciliary of Texas. • Both Shannon and Chris were listed as the insureds on a Colorado auto insurance policy for a different vehicle. That policy’s effective date was March 6, 2024—months after Chris claims Shannon became a domiciliary of Texas. The insurance card for that policy listed the Colorado address for both Chris and Shannon. • Shannon testified that on December 21, 2023, Chris cancelled her credit card and “cut [her] off” from any funds. She opened the bank account in Texas because (1) Chris would not respond to her messages asking about 13 the credit card and (2) she needed an accessible bank to be able to deposit “some emergency cash” instead of just carrying the cash around. • Shannon testified that her therapist was licensed in both Texas and Colorado. Her therapy appointments were either online or in-person, but all the in-person appointments took place in Colorado. She testified that she had never seen a therapist in person in Texas. • Shannon’s dentist was in Colorado. She offered as evidence a patient ledger showing that she had had an in-person dental appointment on September 19, 2023. • Shannon acknowledged that she had had a medical doctor in Texas. She explained that she saw a doctor in Texas in January 2024 for the limited purpose of obtaining a prescription for her medication, which required physician approval. • Shannon testified—and Chris acknowledged—that throughout their marriage, she had shared with Chris hundreds of listings for houses for sale in Texas and in other states, including Florida and Colorado. Shannon explained that as a home designer, she would look at listings because she “love[d] it” and was “inspired by” them. • Shannon denied having ever told Chris that she wanted to live in Texas. B. Analysis Chris filed his original petition for divorce on March 21, 2024, and his amended petition on June 21, 2024. Thus, to maintain his divorce action in Tarrant County, Chris had to show that Shannon had been domiciled in Texas for the preceding six months, or since December 21, 2023, and that she was a Tarrant County resident.4 We conclude that he failed to do so. 4 Chris contends that the date of his amended pleading “counts as the ‘time of filing’ for domicile and residence purposes.” See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 821 S.W.2d 3, 5–6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, no writ); Whitsett v. Whitsett, 201 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex. 14 While some of Chris’s evidence supported his assertion that Shannon resided in Tarrant County, Texas, with an intent to remain there and make it her permanent home, Shannon presented conflicting evidence. For example, Chris’s evidence showed that the utilities at the Fort Worth house were in Shannon’s name. But Shannon’s evidence showed that those utilities had been in her name for years and that due to her role in Rullman Properties, she also had utilities in her name at other rental houses that she and Chris owned, such as the house in Florida. In another example, Chris’s evidence showed that Shannon had been looking at and sending him listings of houses for sale in Texas. But Shannon’s evidence showed that she had also been looking at listings of houses in other states and that her looking at and sending listings to Chris was something she had done throughout their marriage. The trial court did not abuse its discretion merely because it based its decision on Shannon’s conflicting evidence. See Nath, 446 S.W.3d at 361; Unifund CCR Partners, 299 S.W.3d at 97; Boyd, 2024 WL 4457021, at *4. Shannon’s evidence demonstrated that despite “intermittently” residing in Texas, she had no intention of remaining there or of making it her permanent home. Shannon denied ever telling Chris that she wanted to live in Texas. When she left App.—Fort Worth 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Shannon appears to concede this contention. In any event, we need not decide whether the date of Chris’s original petition or the date of his amended petition “counts” as the time of filing. The evidence demonstrates that Shannon was not a domiciliary of Texas for the six months preceding either date. Likewise, the evidence demonstrates that she was not a resident of Tarrant County on or for the ninety days preceding either date. See supra note 3. 15 Colorado and drove to Fort Worth on December 21, 2023, Shannon believed that Chris would follow her there, that they would spend Christmas together, and that like their other trips to Fort Worth that fall, the visit would be temporary. Instead, Shannon spent the next several months “hopping” between Texas, Colorado, and other states before ending up in Oregon. Indeed, their daughter described Shannon’s time at the Fort Worth house as “intermittent”; she never considered Shannon to be living with her in the Fort Worth house or in Texas. And Shannon testified that she never intended to be domiciled in Texas. The trial court also heard evidence that during the relevant statutory period, Shannon maintained a presence in Colorado and intended to keep it as her permanent home. Shannon and Chris’s 2023 joint income tax return showed that she was a full- year resident of Colorado. Shannon filed for divorce in Colorado. Multiple documents admitted into evidence listed the Colorado house as her address. In the spring of 2024, her cell-phone location showed that she was in Colorado. Their daughter had always believed that Colorado was Shannon’s home and that Shannon’s intention was to go back to Colorado. Further, Shannon retained key connections to Colorado: she had in-person appointments with her therapist and dentist in Colorado, she had an auto insurance policy in Colorado, she was registered to vote in Colorado, and she kept her Colorado driver’s license. Shannon retained these connections to Colorado while she was staying with their daughter in Fort Worth, when she “couch-surfed” through different states, and even after she moved to the Pacific Northwest. 16 The evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s findings regarding Shannon’s domicile and residency. See Boyd, 2024 WL 4457021, at *3–4 (concluding that evidence supported trial court’s finding that wife had not met domicile and residency requirements when husband’s evidence showed that the couple owned a home in Texas but never lived there, that they had drivers’ licenses both in Texas and in another country, and that wife traveled between Texas and the other country during the statutory period); Willig v. Diaz, No. 01-15-00073-CV, 2016 WL 2955395, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 19, 2016, no pet.) (upholding trial court’s findings that husband did not meet domicile and residency requirements when conflicting evidence showed that during the relevant statutory period, husband used a Netherlands driver’s license, he was “in and out” of Texas, and his visa showed that he did not spend six months of continuous time in Texas); cf. Hale v. Hale, No. 02-23- 00234-CV, 2024 WL 4510195, at *16 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 17, 2024, pet. denied) (concluding that husband’s testimony about where he lived and for how long was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding regarding his domicile and residency); Roa v. Roa, 970 S.W.2d 163, 164–65 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (upholding trial court’s finding that suit could be maintained in Tarrant County when evidence showed that husband had registered to vote in Texas, had obtained a Texas driver’s license, and considered Tarrant County his permanent residence). Because the evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the findings. And we hold that 17 because Chris lacked the necessary qualifications to maintain his divorce action in Tarrant County, the trial court properly dismissed the divorce suit. Accordingly, we overrule Chris’s sole issue. IV. Conclusion Having overruled Chris’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Justice Delivered: August 13, 2026 18