Defendant's Attorney: See above.

Description: Fort Worth, Texas family law lawyers represented the parties in a divorce case.


Walton was awarded all right and title to the couple's Plano, Texas home after Walton and Delf divorced in 2009. After the divorce, they both continued to live in the home until Walton moved out in February 2011. Delf lived in the home until it was sold on September 16, 2013. Walton and Delf tried to sell the house shortly after their divorce, but the house did not initially sell because of the numerous repairs required. Delf alleged that he made repairs to the home totaling over $130,000 so that the house would be more marketable. The home subsequently sold for a net profit of $255,313.48.

Walton claims that she and Delf entered into an oral agreement via a phone call on September 15, 2013-the day before closing-the terms of which entailed Walton lending Delf $127,656.74, which constituted one-half of the net equity proceeds from the sale of the home. Delf allegedly agreed to repay this entire sum within one year. At closing, Walton and Delf signed a document[1] that provided that the net proceeds from the sale would be evenly divided between them.

Walton alleged that Delf-though he refused to commit the agreement to writing or to establish a repayment schedule-made monthly payments to her from February 2014 through February 2017. These payments, Walton claimed, were to pay off what she understood to be a loan pursuant to the oral agreement. Delf contended that the proceeds-split document constituted the only agreement between them and that it established that Delf was to receive half of the proceeds outright rather than as a loan from Walton. He characterized the three-years' worth of monthly payments he made to Walton as "general support" made out of "moral obligation" to his former wife.

Walton sued Delf on May 29, 2020, claiming that Delf breached the alleged oral agreement by failing to repay the loan "within no longer than one year" from when they entered the agreement on September 15, 2013.[2] Delf moved for summary judgment, arguing that Walton's claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract claims; the trial court denied his motion. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem. Code Ann. § 16.051; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004(a)(3). Delf again moved for summary judgment, this time claiming that the proceeds-split document constituted the only agreement between the parties, thus rendering the alleged oral agreement unenforceable because of the parol evidence rule. Delf also moved for reconsideration of his initial summary judgment motion that was based on limitations. The trial court granted Delf's summary judgment motion on parol evidence grounds and denied his motion to reconsider the limitations argument.

Outcome: "Having held that Walton's breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations, we need not consider her issues raised on appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.1. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: