in the Interest of K.R.C. and L.R.C., 05-13-01419-CV

Austin and Casey Croom married in 1999; they jointly owned 98% of Aecium (medical billing partnership) and ACM Management owned the remaining 2%.
Austin had an extramarital relationship with employee Christina (Christy) Hopper beginning in 2007–2008; Hopper’s compensation rose substantially from 2008–2011.
Casey sued for divorce in 2010 alleging Austin’s adultery, waste of community assets, and fraud on the community; standing orders limited incurring indebtedness during the case.
Experts (a business appraiser and two valuation/accounting professionals) testified Hopper was overcompensated ~ $150,000 (about $50,000/year for 2009–2011); additional small sums related to home remodeling and a $3,000 loan were contested.
Trial court found Austin guilty of adultery, waste, and fraud on the community, ordered reconstitution/equalization and entered a $397,000 money judgment to Casey, and permanently enjoined the children from being in the presence of Hopper or her children.
Austin appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported reconstitution/monetary equalization (partnership funds issue, expert testimony insufficiency), and (2) injunction against contact with Hopper/kids was unsupported and overly broad.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding $397,000 equalization/reconstitution	Casey: evidence (experts) showed Hopper was overpaid; adultery and fraud/waste justified disproportionate award and reconstitution	Austin: expert testimony was conclusory; partnership payments are partnership, not community, property; no proof Casey was deprived of specific sums	Affirmed — sufficient evidence supported reconstitution and equalization; adultery alone could support disproportionate division; experts’ testimony uncontradicted; partnership ownership facts distinguish Lifshutz
Whether permanent injunction barring children from presence/contact with Hopper and her children was supported	Casey: hearing occurred with counselors in camera; lack of reporter’s record waived; trial court considered children’s best interest	Austin: no record of in-camera hearing violates Fam. Code §105.003 and prevents sufficiency review; injunction not shown to be in best interest and is overbroad	Affirmed — parties and counsel participated in and effectively waived the record; missing record presumed to support the trial court’s factual findings; injunction upheld

Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for property division in divorce)
Schleuter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998) (deference to trial court on property division)
In re Marriage of C.A.S. and D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (division of community estate; overlap of abuse-of-discretion and sufficiency review in family cases)
Reisler v. Reisler, 439 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (bench-trial review: conclusions of law de novo; factual credibility for trial court)
Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (mathematical precision not required in dividing property)
Lifshutz v. Lifshutz, 61 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (partner’s spouse has no community right in partnership property; cannot pierce partnership to reach assets)
Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (when record incomplete, presumption that missing portions support factfinder)
In re D.J.M., 114 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (waiver of making a record can be shown by failure to object when parties knowingly proceed without reporter)