Henry Leonard Maher v. Cynthia June Maher
01-14-00106-CV
Tex. App.Jul 16, 2015Background
- H.L. Maher and Cindy June Maher divorced; trial court conducted a one-day hearing addressing separate property, reimbursement, and division of the marital estate.
- The trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce on September 23, 2013, dividing the marital estate and awarding Cindy $813,988.71 as reimbursement for her reimbursement claim.
- Cindy produced 76-page Tracing Spreadsheets tracing community and separate funds, supporting reimbursement and the infusion of inheritance/gift funds into the community.
- A third appraisal of the Parties’ three properties (the 3 Properties) was completed in June 2013; HL raised objections but did not timely challenge the appraisal, and the Final Decree attached the third appraisal.
- HL sought an unsworn Motion for New Trial and appeals challenging, among other things, the characterization and valuation of assets, the reimbursement award, and the final division of the estate.
- The appellate brief defense emphasizes waiver of many issues for lack of objection/briefing and argues that even if errors occurred they were de minimis or non-reversible; appellee Cindy seeks affirmance of the trial court’s decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of the marital estate | H.L. contends assets were mischaracterized; inheritance and tracing fail to defeat community presumption. | Cindy maintains tracing documents are adequate; community property properly characterized. | HL waived objections; court properly characterized assets; decree affirmed. |
| Valuation of the 3 Properties | Trial court erred in relying on post-trial appraisal; third appraisal flawed. | Court permitted use of the third appraisal without error; objection waived. | HL waived; trial court did not abuse discretion in using the third appraisal. |
| Equitable reimbursement award and monetary judgment | Cindy’s reimbursement should include more items, offsets, and enhancement value. | Evidence supports reimbursement; offsets not proven; enhancement value properly calculated. | Evidence supports at least $813,988.71 reimbursement; offsets rejected; award sustained. |
| Division of the marital estate / fault basis for divorce | Court erred by not finding fault or by forgery allegations; division manifestly unjust. | Court properly granted divorce on insupportability; no reversible error in division. | Court’s just and right division affirmed; no reversible fault error shown. |
| Procedural due process errors | Final decree timing, attorney withdrawal, and findings of fact/conclusions of law (FOFs/COLs) issues. | HL waived many procedural objections; no harm shown from late FOFs/COLs or other steps. | No reversible due process violations; appeal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barras v. Barras, 396 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (offset burden under Tex. Fam. Code §3.402(e) and general reimbursement principles)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (deference to trial court on evidentiary issues; standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Ganesan v. Vallabhaneni, 96 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (sufficiency of tracing evidence in rebutting community presumption)
- Osorno v. Osorno, 76 S.W.3d 509 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (need for corroboration beyond witness testimony in tracing separate property)
- Robles v. Robles, 965 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (requirement of corroborating evidence for separate property claims)