Attorney Sonya B. Coffman's Legal Cases

Divorce and separation

LeBlanc v. LeBlanc; No. 09-20-0028-CV; 2022 WL 243163 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont, January 27, 2022)

Jan 27, 2022

OUTCOME: The court of appeals reversed the court's judgment in Ms. Coffman's client's favor, and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to issue a final divorce decree that strictly complies with the Parties' MSA.

The Parties have two minor children. The wife, Sonya Coffman's client, argued that the trial court erred in rendering the divorce decree because it did not strictly comply with the Meditated Settlement ... Agreement (MSA) the Parties reached in settling the terms of their divorce.

Divorce and separation

In re R.C.K.; No. 09-16-00132-CV; 2016 WL 3197585 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, June 9, 2016)

Jun 09, 2016

OUTCOME: Mandamus issued in favor of Sonya Coffman’s client, a doctor, precluding the production of his medical records, pharmacy records, personnel records, and cell phone logs containing patient telephone numbers.

Divorce proceeding in which the Parties' division of property was the only remaining issue.

Child custody

In the Interest of D.F.L.; No. 09-15-00310-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont, February 4, 2016, pet. denied)

Feb 04, 2016

OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of Sonya Coffman’s client (Father) affirmed.

Mother appealed trial court’s order terminating parental rights to her daughter.

Divorce and separation

Pekar v. Pekar; No. 09-14-00464-CV; 2016 WL 240761 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, January 21, 2016, no pet.)

Jan 21, 2016

OUTCOME: Amended final decree of divorce and judgment in favor of Sonya Coffman’s client affirmed.

Husband appealed (i) trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial, and (ii) trial court amending the final decree of divorce without first notifying him it was considering the amendment.

Child custody

In re Barnard; No. 09-13-00149-CV; 2013 WL 1790238 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, April 25, 2013, no pet.)

Apr 25, 2013

OUTCOME: Mother's petition for mandamus denied; temporary orders in favor of Sonya Coffman's client (Father) remained in place.

Mother sought an order from the appellate court to compel the trial court to vacate temporary orders entered in favor of Father.

Child support

In re C.M.F., L.M.F. and C.G.F.; No. 09-11-00626-CV; 2013 WL 476757 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, February 07, 2013, review denied)

Feb 07, 2013

OUTCOME: Child support award was affirmed on appeal in favor of Sonya Coffman's client. The Texas Supreme Court declined to review the holding of the appellate court.

Father appealed child support award to Sonya Coffman's client.

Child custody

In re J.E.; No. 09-09-00476-CV; 2010 WL 5232977 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, December 16, 2010, no pet.)

Dec 16, 2010

OUTCOME: Decision of the District Court affirmed in favor of Sonya Coffman's client.

Appellants, who are not the biological parents of the minor children J.E., S.L., and N.L., appealed the District Court's order naming the children's biological mother, A.L., the managing conservator of ... the children, and naming D.L., the biological father of S.L. and N.L., the possessory conservator of those two children. Appellants argued that they presented sufficient evidence to overcome the parental presumption, the District Court failed to make proper findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the District Court inappropriately applied the parental presumption to the biological father of S.L. and N.L.

Divorce and separation

Treuil v. Treuil, 311 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2010, no pet.)

Apr 08, 2010

OUTCOME: Reversed and rendered in favor of Sonya Coffman's client.

Ex-wife petitioned to enforce divorce decree, seeking an award of a percentage of ex-husband's retirement benefits pursuant to decree. After a bench trial, the District Court found in favor of ex-wife. ... Ex-husband, who was represented by Sonya Coffman, appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) ex-wife's injury occurred, for limitations purposes, when ex-husband withdrew retirement funds and did not remit portion to ex-wife; (2) ex-wife had constructive knowledge of injury, under the discovery accrual rule, when parties' daughter told her about ex-husband's retirement and use of retirement funds; (3) doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not excuse ex-wife's failure to timely file action; and (4) breach of fiduciary duty claim accrued at time of ex-wife's conversation with daughter.

Employment and labor

Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 1998)

May 22, 1998

OUTCOME: Summary judgment affirmed in favor of Sonya Coffman's client.

White county employee sued county and county commissioner under Title VII and federal civil rights statutes, and under Texas law, alleging, inter alia, that county commissioner had instituted generally ... racist employment practices in attempt to force out white employees. Sonya Coffman represented the county commissioner. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered summary judgment for both defendants. Employee appealed. The Fifth Court of Appeals held that: (1) employee abandoned §1981 and §1983 claims on appeal; (2) employee's hostile environment race discrimination claim was subject to continuing violation doctrine for Title VII limitations purposes, and employee set forth sufficient evidence of specific alleged violations continuing into 300-day administrative filing period; (3) discrete adverse actions, even if racially motivated, were not part of continuing violation, thus barring recovery on otherwise untimely demotion and failure to promote claims; (4) employee's failure to make reference to specific dates and times of alleged discrimination did not defeat his hostile environment claim; (5) county commissioner could not be held individually liable under Title VII; (6) employee failed to establish state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) having requested only monetary damages in complaint, employee could not maintain claim under Texas Constitution.

Sonya B. Coffman's Legal Cases (9)

LeBlanc v. LeBlanc; No. 09-20-0028-CV; 2022 WL 243163 (Tex. App. -- Beaumont, January 27, 2022)

In re R.C.K.; No. 09-16-00132-CV; 2016 WL 3197585 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, June 9, 2016)

In the Interest of D.F.L.; No. 09-15-00310-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont, February 4, 2016, pet. denied)

Pekar v. Pekar; No. 09-14-00464-CV; 2016 WL 240761 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, January 21, 2016, no pet.)

In re Barnard; No. 09-13-00149-CV; 2013 WL 1790238 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, April 25, 2013, no pet.)

In re C.M.F., L.M.F. and C.G.F.; No. 09-11-00626-CV; 2013 WL 476757 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, February 07, 2013, review denied)

In re J.E.; No. 09-09-00476-CV; 2010 WL 5232977 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, December 16, 2010, no pet.)

Treuil v. Treuil, 311 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2010, no pet.)

Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 1998)