Fredrick Merida Warriner v. Dana Dian Warriner
394 S.W.3d 240
Tex. App.2012Background
- Married on April 8, 1995; Appellee filed for divorce requesting disproportionate community-property division.
- Appellant and Appellee contested distribution of marital assets and ongoing discovery disputes.
- A Motion to Compel was granted; a de novo hearing followed before trial.
- Bench trial occurred October 14, 2010; only Appellee and her counsel testified; Appellant did not testify.
- Appellee swore to an amended inventory; the court took judicial notice of Appellant’s handwritten inventory.
- Final Decree of Divorce (March 17, 2011) allocated property; Appellant appealed three years later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | Warriner argues the court failed to issue independent findings. | Warriner contends the court adopted Appellee’s findings improperly. | Court-approved findings upheld; no reversible error in adoption. |
| Admission of unsworn supplemental interrogatories and denial of motion to compel | Appellant argues interrogatories were unsworn and improperly admitted. | Appellee cured deficiencies; good cause supported by record. | No abuse of discretion; interrogatories properly admitted. |
| Characterization of nine accounts, tickets, Ellis Properties, and Krugerrands as community vs. separate property | Appellant claims items are separate property by traceable inheritance or gift. | Evidence does not overcome community-property presumption; burden on Appellant. | Trial court’s community-property finding affirmed; no clear and convincing proof of separate property. |
| Amended Sworn Inventory filed outside discovery period | Amended inventory should have been barred as untimely. | Good cause shown due to Appellant’s delay in producing documents. | Court did not abuse discretion; good cause supported overruling objection. |
| Admissibility and impact of tax rolls; late closing argument | Tax rolls are hearsay and unreliable for value determinations; closing argument issue prejudicial. | Any error was harmless; closing argument not properly preserved for review. | Tax rolls admission deemed harmless error; closing-argument issue not preserved for appellate review. |
| Written closing argument by Appellee’s counsel after trial | Trial was improperly influenced by post-trial closing letter. | Record did not include the document; not properly in the record. | Issue not properly before the court; overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2011) (trace separate property; burden on the claiming spouse)
- Tarver v. Tarver, 394 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1965) (separate property determination when commingled with community property)
- Ellebracht v. Ellebracht, 735 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.App.—Austin 1987) (community-property presumption controls when characterization is in doubt)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency; deference to trial court)
- Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. 1998) (evidence must be legally sufficient to support findings; standard of review)