Emile Jubert Daigle Jr. v. Bonnie Daigle
09-14-00399-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Emile and Bonnie Daigle married in 1995; Bonnie filed for divorce in 2013 and the property‑division hearing occurred June 5, 2014.
- Dispute centered on an AXA Equitable account (Contract No. 302638743, labeled “Accumulator Plus (Rollover IRA)”), valued ~ $212,538, which the trial court found to be acquired during marriage.
- Emile claimed the account was his separate property, tracing its origin to an Equitable annuity/policy (No. 40310720) he was awarded in a 1995 divorce from a prior spouse; he testified the old policy was renamed/restructured into the 2002 AXA contract.
- Documentary record included a 2002 Equitable welcome/contract summary listing Contract Date Oct. 3, 2002, various Equitable/AXA account reports, a 1994 inventory and a 1995 fax showing the earlier account; evidence showed account 40310720 was later terminated for nonpayment (2013).
- The court applied the statutory community presumption (property possessed at dissolution is community unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence) and ruled the disputed AXA IRA was community property; trial court awarded the parties a division accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Emile's Argument | Bonnie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of AXA account | The AXA IRA is Emile’s separate property (traceable to pre‑marriage annuity awarded in 1995) | The account is community property (acquired during marriage; insufficient tracing) | Court affirmed: AXA IRA is community property; Emile failed to rebut presumption by clear and convincing evidence |
| Legal sufficiency of evidence | Evidence legally insufficient to support community characterization; tracing proves separate origin | Evidence supports trial court’s finding; documentary gaps undermine tracing | Held: Evidence legally sufficient for trial court’s factual finding; no abuse of discretion |
| Factual sufficiency / weight of evidence | Finding is against great weight/preponderance; trial court overlooked tracing evidence | Trial court, as factfinder, could disbelieve or discount Emile’s testimony and documents | Held: Findings not against great weight; trial court free to resolve credibility and inconsistencies |
| Constitutional divestiture / "community out first" rule | Award divests Emile of constitutional separate property; at minimum apply "community out first" to preserve pre‑marriage value | No commingling or evidence of transactions; community out first inapplicable because no proof commingling occurred; entire disputed account treated as acquired during marriage | Held: No unconstitutional divestiture; community out first rule inapplicable because records did not show commingling or transactions preserving pre‑marriage balance |
Key Cases Cited
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (trial court has broad discretion dividing community estate)
- Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (burden to trace separate property to overcome community presumption)
- McKinley v. McKinley, 496 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. 1973) (commingling that defies segregation leaves presumption unresolved)
- McElwee v. McElwee, 911 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (mere testimony without tracing is generally insufficient to rebut community presumption)
- Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990) ("community out first" rule and its application when commingling is shown)
- Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)