Graves v. Tomlinson
329 S.W.3d 128
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Graves and Tomlinson married in 1997; Graves operated multiple business entities (sole proprietorship, LLC, and non-profit) providing home and community-based services.
- The trial court held a jury trial (2008) on grounds for divorce, property division, and fees; post-trial sanctions against Graves were awarded.
- An auditor was appointed to conduct a comprehensive audit; fees for the auditor and firms were contested.
- The final divorce decree (April 2008) and separate auditor fees judgment were challenged via post-trial motions and notices of appeal.
- The court ultimately affirmed/divided some aspects, reversed sanctions and certain property-division components, and remanded for a just and right division.
- Appellate issues were raised about the characterization and valuation of community vs. separate property and about sanctions and omission provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel applicable to Graves' appeal | Graves did not intend to waive appellate rights; exchange showed no clear waiver. | Graves expressly accepted jury findings and court orders, triggering estoppel. | Judicial estoppel does not apply; appeal admissible. |
| Sufficiency of evidence – farm and ranch equipment as Tomlinson's separate property | Inventory and tracing show 40% separate; testimony unsupported. | Jury could credit Tomlinson's testimony over Graves's evidence. | Evidence legally and factually insufficient to prove separate characterization; Graves wins sub-issue. |
| Valuation of All The Little Things Count and All The Little Things Count, LLC | Evidence, including expert testimony, supports negative or low values for some entities; LLC valued at $1,250,000. | Expert Palmer's methodology valid; combined valuation supported by data. | Sufficient evidence supports LLC valuation; jury range within data; no reversal on valuation. |
| Omitted liabilities and omitted property provisions in the decree | Provision improperly awards omitted property; could divest separate property. | Provision was within the decree; errors are non-preserved or harmless. | Omitted property provision improper for separate property; remand for just and right division. |
| Sanctions against Graves – need for remand and apportionment | Global $250,000 sanction lacks clear apportionment and pre-trial ruling basis; overbroad. | Sanctions tied to Graves's misconduct; supported by findings. | Sanctions order reversed and remanded for proper apportionment and undermining records; partial remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vinson & Elkins v. Moran, 946 S.W.2d 381 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (judicial estoppel requires a prior unequivocal position in a later action)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (final standard for legal sufficiency: whether evidence enables fair-minded people to reach verdict)
- Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (distinguishes reliability challenges to expert testimony from facially speculative testimony)
- Nip v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 154 S.W.3d 767 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (reliability and admissibility distinctions in expert testimony)
- Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1993) (pre-trial discovery rulings and sanctions; preservation principles)
- TransAmerican Nat'l Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must be proportionate and tied to conduct; pre-trial ruling relevance)
- Stavinoha v. Stavinoha, 126 S.W.3d 604 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (clear and convincing standard in tracing separate property)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard for tracing property)