The marriage that ended in criminal convictions and a long prison term eventually resulted in a bitter fight over the family home. In Texas, a woman who filed for divorce following years of marital cruelty was awarded the couple’s home as part of an uneven division of their marital estate. Her husband, serving a 50-year sentence for kidnapping and ongoing domestic violence, appealed the decision. But now, the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals has upheld the divorce judgment, so the property division will stand.
A marriage marked by violence
According to the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals, Francis Lea Romero filed for divorce from Oscar Romero Jr. In the filing, Francis Lea Romero cited cruelty and said the marriage “had become unsustainable.”She produced evidence of his violent behavior and the criminal cases that followed during divorce proceedings. Oscar was convicted of kidnapping and continuous family violence, according to court records. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison. He also had an obstruction or retaliation charge pending.The divorce hearing included a protective order issued against Oscar, as well as documents showing who owned the marital home.Francis argued she was entitled to a greater share of the couple’s community property, including the family home, contending that her husband’s cruel treatment warranted a larger allocation of the marital estate.
Husband fails to show up for divorce hearing
The case took a significant turn when it was listed for final hearing on February 3, 2025. Oscar failed to appear in court, although an earlier order bringing back the divorce case had specified the hearing date.But, as the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals explained, Francis kept submitting her evidence to the trial court. Based on her testimony and the documentation that supported it, the court granted the divorce and awarded her the marital residence as well as other assets acquired during the marriage. Oscar did not attend the hearing, so a post-answer default judgment was entered. Oscar had been served with notice of the hearing.
House ownership dispute
Oscar later claimed the house was his and Francis should not have received it. He filed a restricted appeal, a legal process that allows a party that did not participate in the hearing that led to a default judgment to challenge the judgment under certain conditions. His appeal was filed July 29, 2025, six months after the February divorce judgment.But the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals noted that documents Oscar filed with the trial court after the divorce decree could not be considered in determining whether an error was apparent from the original record. The court also noted that Texas trial courts have broad discretion to divide the marital estate in a manner that is just and right. A disproportionate award is not a per se ground for setting aside a divorce decree.
Appeals court upholds property split
The appellate judges also examined whether proper notice of the final hearing had been given to Oscar. He was in jail at the time, but the court found that his incarceration did not suffice to prove that he was denied notice. The appellate court found no reversible error in the record and determined that Oscar had failed to establish any basis for reversing the trial court’s decision.On November 9, 2026, the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce judgment, awarding Francis the marital home and other property. The ruling upholds the property division based on the marriage and divorce evidence, ending the couple’s legal battle.Images Courtesy: istock
