Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
The court in a Texas divorce case must divide the parties’ estate in a just and right manner. Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001. Complex estates may include both community and separate property, acquired from various sources. The court can only divide community property, which is any property acquired by a spouse during the marriage except separate property. Separate property includes property owned by the spouse before the marriage and property acquired by a spouse during the marriage through gift, devise, or descent. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.001(2). There is a presumption property either spouse possesses during or on dissolution of the marriage is community property and a spouse claiming property is separate has the burden of proof to a clear and convincing standard. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003.
In a recent case, a former wife appealed the court’s property division in the final divorce decree. The parties got married in 1999 and had one child. The husband petitioned for divorce in 2017. He asked the court to confirm two pieces of real property were his separate property. The wife sought reimbursement to and reconstitution of the community estate and spousal maintenance. The court filed the final divorce decree in January 2024 and the wife appealed.
Separate Property
On appeal, the wife challenged the trial court’s characterization of the “69th Street property” as the husband’s separate property. She argued the husband had not presented sufficient evidence to support his testimony that he had inherited it.
The husband testified his parents had owned the property and lived in it until his mother’s death in 2014. After his mother died, his father moved in with the parties. The husband testified his father died and 2017 and that he was the sole heir. He filed a probate action and received his father’s entire estate, which included the property and some brokerage accounts. There was also testimony that the husband had opened an account for his father’s estate that was funded from security in the father’s brokerage accounts. The husband had used the 69th Street property as a rental property and paid its taxes from the estate account. Probate was still pending at the time of the divorce hearing.
The wife had not included the 69th Street property in her sworn inventory list or her disposition proposal. She had requested reimbursement to the community estate from the husband’s separate estate for the property taxes paid for the 69th Street property. She argued that a tax receipt from 2017 that showed the husband’s father had paid the taxes but listed the husband as “100% owner” showed the husband had not inherited the property.
The appeals court noted, however, that the tax receipt was not conclusive proof of ownership and did not show whether the husband bought the property or inherited it. The appeals court also pointed out the receipt did not show an effective date of ownership that would contradict the husband’s testimony. The appeals court concluded the receipt raised a fact issue that the trial court could have resolved in the husband’s favor based on its determination of the credibility and weight of the evidence.
The appeals court concluded the uncontroverted evidence at trial showing the father owned the property upon his death and the husband was his sole heir was sufficient to establish that the property was separate in character. The appeals court found no error in the trial court’s conclusion the 69th Street property was the husband’s separate property.
Disproportionate Share
The wife also argued the trial court abused its discretion by awarding a disproportionate share of the property to the husband.
The appeals court pointed out the court had rejected the wife’s claims for cruelty, reimbursement, reconstitution, and spousal maintenance after the divorce. The trial court stated that the division was “just and right.” It had considered the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to fault in the breakup, benefits from continuing the marriage, need for support, waste, attorney’s fees, the parties’ separate estates, and constructive fraud allegations. The wife argued that she had received a disproportionate share of the community property, but the court noted that she had omitted an asset she sold while the divorce was pending. Additionally, a significant amount of the estate awarded to the husband was a vehicle, which he was awarded for the “use and benefit” of the daughter, who was at college out of state. The appeals court calculated only a few hundred dollars difference in the net value of community property awarded to each party and the wife had not shown that there was a substantial disparity in the division that would constitute an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Contact a Skilled Dallas Family Law Attorney
In this case, the husband was able to present evidence supporting the property’s separate character and showing that it had maintained that separate character. If you have a complex estate involving significant separate property, an experienced Texas divorce lawyer can help you protect your assets. Call McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200 for a consultation.
Want the best family law firm in Dallas? McClure Law Group is your team.