In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF C.A.S. AND D.P.S.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7863
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Daniel Silvey and Cynthia Silvey married in 1999 and separated March 23, 2009; Cynthia filed for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences and later asserted Daniel adultery.
- Property division was tried to the bench over four nonconsecutive days in 2011, with a July 6, 2011 letter granting divorce on fault grounds and detailing the division.
- A November 14, 2011 order included findings of fact and conclusions of law; the court found Daniel adulterous and that the divorce was fault-based, and divided specific assets valued at $1,646,683.10 with Cynthia receiving $1,334,958.10 and Daniel $311,735.00.
- Daniel requested additional findings under rule 298 and family code 6.711; an amended decree dated January 26, 2012 added some separate-property awards but did not change the property split.
- On appeal, Daniel challenged the sufficiency of findings, the fault-based divorce, and the property division; the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding the trial court’s discretion and final property distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate | Daniel contends the division was unjust and lacked adequate valuation evidence | Cynthia argues the court adequately considered a broad set of factors and supported the division | No abuse of discretion; division upheld |
| Whether the divorce was properly granted on fault grounds | Daniel argues the evidence did not prove adultery caused the breakup | Cynthia maintains clear evidence of adultery supporting fault-based divorce | Adultery proven; fault-based divorce affirmed |
| Whether the court's findings of fact were sufficient and properly issued timely | Daniel claims insufficient/additional findings were required and not timely provided | Cynthia argues the findings were sufficient to support the judgment | Findings sufficient; non-prejudicial lack of additional findings not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (standard for abuse of discretion in family law matters; sufficiency review)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency review in appellate review)
- In re S.A.A., 279 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (adultery may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence; fault grounds in divorce)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (broad discretion in dividing marital estate; factors to consider)
- Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (cumulative error/standard for analyzing aggregate trial errors)