Elmer Goode v. Geraldine Vargas Garcia, 01-20-00143-CV

Parties: Elmer Goode (husband) and Geraldine Garcia (wife) lived together from 2000, married in May 2003, separated April 2017; three children (two young twins at trial).
Disputed assets: a single checking account maintained by Goode and three real properties purchased during the marriage (Redondo Drive, Barbil Lane, Lear Street).
Trial evidence: Goode testified the funds and purchases were his separate property but produced no documentary tracing; he admitted commingling and deposited rental income and Social Security into the account. Garcia introduced a transaction list for the account (showing a May 2018 balance of $209,624) and an inventory/appraisement valuing the three houses.
Final decree: court awarded Garcia $104,812 (exactly half of the May 2018 account balance) and two houses (Redondo Drive and Barbil Lane); other personal property divisions were made but values generally were not found.
Procedural points: Goode did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law; he moved for new trial (overruled by operation of law) and appealed. On appeal the court reviews classification/division for abuse of discretion.
Holding preview: appellate court affirmed — Goode failed to rebut the community-property presumption for the account or the houses and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Goode)	Defendant's Argument (Garcia)	Held
Monetary award from Goode's checking account	Funds were Goode's separate property; trial evidence was too sparse to support the award; division was not just and right	Goode failed to trace or produce documentary proof; community presumption applies; Garcia offered account transaction list	Court: Goode failed to rebut community presumption by clear and convincing evidence; account list provided some evidence to support the award; no abuse of discretion — affirm
Award of two real properties purchased during marriage	Properties were purchased with Goode's separate funds and thus are his separate property; division therefore divested his separate estate and was unjust	Properties were acquired during marriage and Goode produced no tracing; Garcia's inventory/appraisement supported values and trial court could consider parties' needs	Court: Goode did not trace funds or rebut presumption; properties were properly characterized/divided as community property; award was within trial court's discretion — affirm

Lynch v. Lynch, 540 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (abuse-of-discretion standard for classification/division)
Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2011) (necessity of tracing to establish separate property)
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977) (trial court may not transfer one spouse's separate property to the other)
Brown v. Wokocha, 526 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (community-property presumption and need for findings/value evidence)
In re Marriage of Harrison, 557 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (appellate limits when trial court fails to make valuation findings)
Robles v. Robles, 965 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (testimony alone without tracing insufficient to rebut community presumption)