Frederick Dawson Graham v. Dena Marie Turner
12-14-00336-CV
| Tex. App. | May 26, 2015Background
- Parties: Frederick D. Graham (Appellant) v. Dena M. Turner (Appellee). Final divorce decree entered Sept. 3, 2014 (Nacogdoches County). Appellee seeks affirmance on appeal.
- Parties cohabited and worked together for years prior to marriage (married 2007; ceased living together ~July 1, 2012). They purchased the Raguet Street house in 2006 before marriage; title recorded solely in Graham’s name because of Turner's credit.
- Appellee alleges (and produced bank/email tracing) that the down payment and mortgage principal reductions came from business revenues generated by the couple’s joint efforts and from accounts jointly controlled, not from Graham’s separate UK funds.
- Trial court found Graham not credible, made admissions of forgery/fabrication and hiding assets in the UK, found Graham guilty of cruel treatment (assault/battery) and at fault for the breakup, and thus awarded Turner an ownership interest in the residence, a disproportionate division of property (including the back lot), spousal maintenance, attorney’s fees, and temporary-order arrearage.
- Graham appealed raising nine issues: ownership interest/tenancy-in-common in the residence; divestiture of half the residence; whether residence was bought with Graham’s separate property; alleged fraud by Turner on the community estate; benefits Turner received during marriage; fault for breakup; spousal support; and division of the back lot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (Graham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellee has an ownership interest in the pre-marital residence | Parties intended and treated the house as jointly owned; down payment and mortgage payments came from joint/business funds; title in Graham’s name solely for financing/credit reasons | Title was solely Graham’s; funds used were his separate property (including alleged UK funds) so Turner has no ownership interest | Trial court’s finding of joint/tenants-in-common ownership upheld; Appellee awarded interest (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether mortgage/down‑payment payments were separate property of Graham | Tracing evidence and joint account records show payments from business revenues of the couple; separate funds were commingled | Payments traced to Graham’s separate accounts/UK funds (argued) | Trial court accepted tracing and commingling findings for Appellee; payments not found to be Graham’s separate property |
| Fraud/unauthorized community expenditures and claims about benefits received by Turner | Turner’s expenditures were known to and benefited Graham; alleged benefits were compensation for her business services; no credible proof of Turner defrauding the community | Graham contends Turner spent community funds without consent and obtained improper benefits | Trial court found no credible proof of fraudulent expenditure by Turner; the court credited Turner’s explanations and emails evidencing business compensation |
| Fault, spousal support, and unequal property division | Graham’s admitted forgeries, fabrications, admissions of hiding assets, cruelty/assault, and abandonment justified fault finding, disproportionate division, and spousal maintenance | Graham disputed severity/credibility of allegations and ability to pay; argued unequal division and support orders were erroneous | Trial court’s fault findings and corresponding awards (disproportionate property division, spousal support, attorney’s fees, temporary-order arrears) were reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Griffin v. Birkman, 266 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (trial-court discretion in property division assessed on sufficiency of evidence)
- Knight v. Knight, 301 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (unequal division justified by trial court findings)
- Harrington v. Harrington, 742 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (oral partnership/tenancy-in-common and title taken in one party’s name for convenience/credit)
- Mea v. Mea, 464 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1971) (division of marital property within trial court’s discretion)
- In the Interest of M.C.F., 121 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (evidentiary support for family-law findings)