Back to Learning Center

Blog

Specialty tag(s): Divorce for Women, Pre-Divorce Guidance, Divorce, Divorce for Men

Can You Spend Money During a Divorce in Texas?

Ryan R. Bauerle | July 14, 2026

If you’re going through a divorce in Texas, you may be wondering whether you can continue spending money from joint accounts, pay household bills, or make larger purchases while the case is pending. Generally speaking, the answer is yes, but Texas courts evaluate that spending against the financial status quo and the rules that govern property division in Texas.

Under Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 7, courts have broad authority to divide community property in a manner that is “just and right.” They also have the power to address spending that improperly reduces the marital estate. Texas refers to this as fraud on the community (the depletion of community assets without the other spouse’s consent), and the doctrine is codified in Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009.

In practical terms, ordinary living expenses are generally permitted during a divorce, while unusual, excessive, or retaliatory spending can create significant problems later in the case. This article explains what Texas courts typically allow, what may be considered marital waste, and what remedies are available when a spouse spends community funds improperly.

Spending Guidelines During a Texas Divorce

One of the most common questions during a divorce is whether you can continue spending money as you normally would. In Texas, usually you can, but only if the spending is consistent with the family’s established financial pattern.

Texas courts generally focus on whether a transaction was reasonable, necessary, and made in the ordinary course of life. Under Tex. Fam. Code § 6.501(b)(2), spouses are typically allowed to continue paying reasonable living expenses while the divorce is pending. Problems arise when spending appears unusual, excessive, retaliatory, or designed to reduce the value of the community estate before it can be divided.

The chart below provides a general framework for how courts often view different types of spending.

The green column reflects spending that generally maintains the financial status quo. Courts expect spouses to continue paying for housing, food, healthcare, children’s needs, and other routine expenses while the case is pending.

The yellow column contains transactions that are not necessarily improper but often attract scrutiny. A replacement vehicle may be justified. Moving funds into a separate account may be reasonable in some circumstances. A larger attorney retainer may also be appropriate. However, these transactions should be carefully documented and discussed with counsel before proceeding.

The red column contains the types of conduct most likely to support a claim for fraud on the community under Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009. Common examples include gifts to a paramour, transferring money to relatives, gambling away community assets, or engaging in unusual spending immediately before or during the divorce. If a court concludes that a spouse improperly depleted the marital estate, it can adjust the final property division to account for the loss.

How Texas Courts Punish Marital Waste

Texas is a community property state, meaning most assets acquired during marriage are presumed to belong to both spouses equally under Tex. Fam. Code §§ 3.002–3.003. Because of that shared ownership structure, courts take spending during a divorce seriously when it appears to reduce the value of the marital estate unfairly.

In Texas, the legal term you will see most often is “fraud on the community.” It is codified at Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009 and is the umbrella concept that covers what many people casually refer to as dissipation or marital waste. While those terms are often used interchangeably in everyday language, Texas courts rely on “fraud on the community” as the governing doctrine.

There are two main forms of fraud: actual fraud and constructive fraud. Actual fraud involves intentional deception – spending or transferring assets specifically to deprive the other spouse. Constructive fraud is more common and does not require proof of bad intent. Instead, it arises when one spouse makes an unfair transfer or gift of community property to a third party. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the spending spouse to prove the transaction was fair and reasonable. In practice, many spouses do not realize their conduct can fall into this category until it is raised in litigation.

A key case illustrating this framework is Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998), where the Texas Supreme Court addressed the improper diversion of community assets and reinforced that remedies for waste are handled within the divorce itself rather than through separate lawsuits.

Common examples of conduct that may be treated as fraud on the community under § 7.009 include:

• Gifts or spending on a romantic partner: Paying rent, travel, or luxury expenses for a new boyfriend or girlfriend using marital funds.
• Transfers to family members or third parties: Moving large sums, such as the $80,000 transfer pattern in Schlueter, to relatives without a legitimate marital purpose.
• Gambling or speculative losses: Using community funds for gambling, risky investments, or other high-risk activities that deplete the estate.
• Retaliatory spending: Running up credit card debt or making large discretionary purchases after discovering infidelity or conflict.

Once a court finds fraud on the community, it has wide discretion to correct the imbalance.

What the Court Can Actually Do

Under Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009, the court may reconstitute the community estate, meaning it adds the wasted or improperly transferred funds back into the marital estate as if they still existed. This adjusted estate is then divided under the “just and right” standard in Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001, which allows the judge to award a disproportionate share to the wronged spouse.

In addition, courts can issue money judgments against the spouse responsible for the waste and may award attorney’s fees under Tex. Fam. Code §§ 6.502 and 6.708, where litigation was required to recover or account for the missing assets. Importantly, once constructive fraud is established, the burden shifts to the spending spouse to prove the fairness of the transaction.

In practice, these remedies give Texas courts broad power to restore value to the marital estate and ensure that one spouse’s spending does not unfairly reduce the other’s share at divorce.

Protecting Marital Assets from a Spending Spouse

When one spouse believes the other is spending or moving money improperly during a divorce, Texas law provides a structured set of tools to preserve the marital estate. These remedies operate on a “speed ladder,” ranging from automatic protections to emergency court intervention.

The first layer is county standing orders. In several Texas counties – including Dallas, Bexar, Travis, and Collin – standing orders automatically take effect the moment a divorce petition is filed and bind both spouses without needing a judge’s immediate involvement. These orders typically prohibit hiding assets, transferring funds out of the ordinary course, or changing insurance and financial arrangements. By contrast, Tarrant and Harris counties do not have automatic standing orders, and Texas does not have a statewide automatic temporary injunction system. This is a common misconception.

Where immediate protection is needed, the next tool is a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) under Tex. Fam. Code § 6.501. A TRO can be issued quickly and without the other spouse present (ex parte), and it typically lasts up to 14 days under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680. Importantly, it can be used to prevent the liquidation or transfer of accounts when there is a risk of imminent financial harm. Under Tex. Fam. Code § 6.503, no bond is required in most family law TRO situations, making it a practical first step in urgent cases.

After the TRO stage, courts may issue a temporary injunction under Tex. Fam. Code § 6.502. Unlike a TRO, this requires a hearing where both spouses can present evidence. Once granted, it remains in place for the duration of the divorce and functions as a longer-term framework for maintaining the financial status quo. These orders often include detailed restrictions on spending, account access, and asset transfers.

When spending is suspected but not yet fully proven, courts and attorneys often turn to forensic accounting. This process traces bank activity, identifies unusual transfers, and reconstructs missing or concealed funds. It is particularly useful in cases where one spouse believes assets have been moved, hidden, or dissipated but lacks full visibility into the financial picture.

Together, these tools create a layered enforcement system. Standing orders provide immediate baseline protection in some counties. TROs address urgent threats. Temporary injunctions stabilize the case through trial. And forensic accounting helps uncover what has already been moved or concealed, so it can be addressed in the final property division under Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009.

Paying Your Divorce Attorney from Joint Funds

Under Texas law, it is generally permissible to pay a divorce attorney using funds from a joint or community account, but the way the withdrawal is made matters. Courts typically evaluate these transactions through the lens of reasonableness, proportionality, and whether the spending maintains the financial status quo during the divorce.

In many cases, a reasonable attorney retainer paid from a joint account is accepted, particularly where county standing orders expressly allow payment of ordinary legal expenses from community funds. For example, the Dallas County standing order recognizes that attorney’s fees may be paid as part of maintaining necessary litigation and household expenses during a divorce.

However, proportionality is critical. Even though attorney fees are legitimate expenses, a large withdrawal that significantly depletes a joint account can create legal issues. For instance, a $100,000 retainer drawn from a $120,000 joint account may be scrutinized as potential waste under Tex. Fam. Code § 7.009 because it materially reduces the available community estate without a clear necessity or balance.

To reduce risk, the transaction should be properly documented and disclosed in the financial disclosure phase of the case. Courts are less concerned with the fact that attorney fees were paid and more concerned with whether the withdrawal was transparent, reasonable, and consistent with the parties’ financial circumstances. Where there is uncertainty about appropriate sizing, it is advisable to consult counsel before making the transfer.

Ultimately, attorney fees are treated differently from discretionary spending because they are part of securing representation in the divorce itself. However, like all expenditures during the case, they remain subject to review to ensure they do not unfairly prejudice the other spouse’s interest in the community estate.

Talk to a GBA Property Division Attorney

Every divorce in Texas turns on its own facts, especially when it comes to how money is being spent, what counts as reasonable versus excessive, and how courts may ultimately divide the community estate. This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for legal advice about your specific situation.

GBA Family Law is one of the largest family law firms in Texas, with 31 attorneys Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and three former Texas family court judges on staff. In cases involving spending and asset protection, what matters is experience — GBA attorneys understand how Texas courts actually apply fraud on the community, standing orders, and reimbursement claims in real cases.

If you are concerned about financial activity during your divorce – or unsure whether recent spending could affect your case – you can schedule a consultation with our property division team to review your circumstances and understand your options under Texas law.

Sign Up For Our Blog.