Judge Gil Jones, Credentialed Distinguished Mediator (TMCA1) & Retired District Judge

Photo of Judge Jones, Credentialed Distinguished Mediator (TMCA)

After 16 wonderful years serving the people of the 33rd Judicial District of Texas, I retired from the active bench on December 31, 2012. In January a new career began, one of dispute resolution through mediation and arbitration. I now practice solely as a mediator, a Credentialed Distinguished Mediator (TMCA), and in other areas of dispute resolution.

When you are ready, the attorney taking the lead in booking a mediation session can go directly to the Schedule Now page for detailed guidance, or click on the Schedule Appointment button below. I accept both half-day and full day sessions. Clients should take a look at the For The Clients page for advance information and can pay be credit card using the button below.

If you already have a mediator, I am also available to consult with attorneys on mediation strategies and preparation. Lastly, I am also available for single arbiter arbitrations.

Contact me at  or by phone to 830-201-0050.

Mediations are conducted at 1307 2nd Street, Suite D, Marble Falls, TX.

Some general information:

  • Come dressed comfortably. We will be casual.
  • For full day mediations lunch will be provided.
  • Coffee, water and light snacks are available.
  • Wi-fi is available.

See! I can be casual. Casual photo of Judge Jones. Credentialed Distinguished Mediator (TMCA)

Scheduling, Fee Schedule, cancellation policy & Payment by credit card

My fee schedule changed in October 2016 and may be found here.  The cancellation policy may be found here.

Schedule Appointment  or click here for detailed instructions

Pay by credit card

Satisfaction survey. Doesn’t take long to fill it out. Much appreciated.

What is a Credentialed Distinguished Mediator (TMCA)

Although my prior law practice and judicial tenure qualified me legally to conduct mediations, I recognized that mediation requires a different skill set than that of a trial court judge. Therefore, I have completed both the basic and advanced family mediation certification courses and have gained the experience to be credentialed by the Texas Mediator Credentialing Association as a Distinguished Mediator. I adhere to its Code of Ethics. You can see what others are saying about my services on the reviews page. That’s the short version and the long version can be viewed here.

Location and area served

Mediations are usually conducted at my mediation suite at 1307 Second Street, Suite D, Marble Falls. (directions and maps), but at other locations if needed. While I primarily mediate and arbitrate cases from Burnet County, Llano County, Blanco County and San Saba County, I am happy to also mediate in Travis County, Williamson County, Brown County, McCullough County, Gillespie County, Kendall County, and beyond.

It is my hope that this site will aid the process of dispute resolution in Texas through interesting articles, comments from astute readers and links to some of the excellent blogs by other mediators.

Without a doubt, Mediation Makes the Difference™ as do all forms of dispute resolution.

To navigate through the site graphically, click here.

  1. Texas Mediator Credentialing Association

Recent Posts

Veteran’s post-divorce disability waiver sticks former spouse

Veteran’s post-divorce disability waiver affects former spouse

The case

An important case where considering a property division with a service member. The case is HOWELL v. HOWELL, certiorari to the supreme court of arizona, No. 15–1031. Argued March 20, 2017—Decided May 15, 2017.

The short answer

Service member and spouse divorced, then he retired and she began getting 50% of his retirement pay. 13 years later, the Air Force classified him as partially disabled. As required in receiving disability pay, he waived $250 per month. Retroactively, ex-spouse’s part was also reduced. SCOTUS says she’s stuck.

Planning point

Build in a contingency plan that compensates her if a post-divorce disability determination occurs.

Case report

The following is as reported from Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act authorizes States to treat veterans’ “disposable retired pay” as community property divisible upon divorce, 10 U. S. C. §1408, but expressly excludes from its definition of “disposable retired pay” amounts deducted from that pay “as a result of a waiver . . . required by law in order to receive” disability benefits, §1408(a)(4)(B). The divorce decree of petitioner John Howell and respondent Sandra Howell awarded Sandra 50% of John’s future Air Force retirement pay, which she began to receive when John retired the following year. About 13 years later, the Department of Veterans Affairs found that John was partially disabled due to an earlier service-related injury. To receive disability pay, federal law required John to give up an equivalent amount of retirement pay. 38 U. S. C. §5305. By his election, John waived about $250 of his retirement pay, which also reduced the value of Sandra’s 50% share. Sandra petitioned the Arizona family court to enforce the original divorce decree and restore the value of her share of John’s total retirement pay. The court held that the original divorce decree had given Sandra a vested interest in the prewaiver amount of John’s retirement pay and ordered John to ensure that she receive her full 50% without regard for the disability waiver. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, holding that federal law did not pre-empt the family court’s order.

Held: A state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse’s portion of the veteran’s retirement pay caused by the veteran’s waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits. This Court’s decision in Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U. S. 581 , determines the outcome here. There, the Court held that federal law completely pre-empts the States from treating waived military retirement pay as divisible community property. Id., at 594–595. The Arizona Supreme Court attempted to distinguish Mansell by emphasizing the fact that the veteran’s waiver in that case took place before the divorce proceeding while the waiver here took place several years after the divorce. This temporal difference highlights only that John’s military pay at the time it came to Sandra was subject to a future contingency, meaning that the value of Sandra’s share of military retirement pay was possibly worth less at the time of the divorce. Nothing in this circumstance makes the Arizona courts’ reimbursement award to Sandra any the less an award of the portion of military pay that John waived in order to obtain disability benefits. That the Arizona courts referred to her interest in the waivable portion as having “vested” does not help: State courts cannot “vest” that which they lack the authority to give. Neither can the State avoid Mansell by describing the family court order as an order requiring John to “reimburse” or to “indemnify” Sandra, rather than an order dividing property, a semantic difference and nothing more. Regardless of their form, such orders displace the federal rule and stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the purposes and objectives of Congress. Family courts remain free to take account of the contingency that some military retirement pay might be waived or take account of reductions in value when calculating or recalculating the need for spousal support. Here, however, the state courts made clear that the original divorce decree divided the whole of John’s military pay, and their decisions rested entirely upon the need to restore Sandra’s lost portion. Pp. 6–8.

238 Ariz. 407, 361 P. 3d 936, reversed and remanded.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, andKagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

  1. Managing someone else’s money in Texas Leave a reply
  2. How to Kill a Perfectly Good Lawsuit with a Motion to Show Authority in Texas Leave a reply
  3. Dangerous child protection bill – HB205 Leave a reply
  4. The Forceful Mediator Leave a reply
  5. Email required now by State Bar Leave a reply
  6. DWI roadside tests Leave a reply
  7. Buckling up — another reason Leave a reply
  8. STEM at long distance Leave a reply
  9. The Cobbler’s children have no shoes Leave a reply