Brentley Wayne Hrncirik v. Bobbye Gail Hrncirik
07-15-00001-CV
Tex. App.Apr 8, 2015Background
- Parties: Brentley Wayne Hrncirik (respondent/appellant) and Bobbye Gail Hrncirik (petitioner/appellee); divorce trial heard August 29, 2014; Final Decree signed October 1, 2014; findings signed November 5, 2014. Appellant appealed division of community estate.
- Court granted divorce on grounds of insupportability and adultery and found fault by Brentley relevant to property division.
- Trial court awarded a disproportionate property division: Wife received 52% of Brentley’s Matco 401(k) (plus other assets and trust funds); Husband awarded 48% of that 401(k) and many titled vehicles/real property.
- Disputes at trial included alleged nonpayment of temporary-order obligations (camper payments, trust deposits), alleged adultery, missing tools (claimed by husband valued at ~52,000), and differing valuations of household property and retirements.
- Appellant’s procedural posture: filed motion for new trial (overruled by operation of law) and timely appealed, arguing the unequal division lacked evidentiary support and was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bobbye) | Defendant's Argument (Brentley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had evidence to award wife a disproportionate share of community property (52% of husband’s 401(k)) | Fault (adultery, cruel treatment), willful violation of temporary orders, disparity in earning power, and benefits wife lost by marriage dissolution justify unequal division | Insufficient or no evidence to support fault-based disproportionate award; court ignored husband’s testimony and valuations (tools, household property); division is unjust and an abuse of discretion | Trial court made and entered findings awarding disproportionate share based on fault; appellant argues on appeal that evidence is insufficient and division is an abuse of discretion (appellate court review standard described in brief) |
| Whether the property valuations and characterization supporting the division were adequately supported in the record | Petitioner presented inventories, appraisement, trust account balances, retirement plan values, and creditor/loan documents | Respondent failed to submit an Inventory & Appraisement or proposed disposition as required by scheduling order; respondent testified to values (tools, personalty) which petitioner contends were unsubstantiated | Trial court found primary valuation evidence was provided by petitioner; court credited petitioner’s evidence and entered the property division |
| Whether violations of temporary orders supported adverse property allocation | Multiple found violations (missed camper payments, failure to deposit rent checks, failure to deliver Jeep keys, reimbursements) demonstrated willful conduct supporting unequal division | Husband disputed circumstances and contested factual allegations; argued violations did not justify disproportionate award or were not tied to valuation evidence | Court found willful violations and considered credibility conflicts in entering disproportionate division based on fault |
| Standard of appellate review for property division challenges | N/A (petitioner defends trial discretion) | Appellant asserts abuse of discretion; invokes "no evidence" and factual insufficiency standards for appellate review | Brief cites standards: appellate courts defer to trial court but will reverse if division is so unjust as to constitute abuse of discretion; review uses "no evidence" and factual-sufficiency frameworks |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. City of San Antonio, 752 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. 1988) (standard for reviewing "no-evidence" factual sufficiency challenges)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (trial court has broad discretion in dividing community estate)
- Massey v. Massey, 807 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) (unequal division permissible when supported by basis such as fault)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 44 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (party challenging division must show division so unjust as to be an abuse of discretion)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 623 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981) (same principle on abuse of discretion in property division)
- Mata v. Mata, 710 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1986) (competency of spouse testimony on personal property valuation)
- Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., 687 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (findings of fact have force similar to jury verdict when record is complete)
- Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp., 720 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1986) (discusses factual-sufficiency review)