in the Matter of the Marriage of Emma Ruth Vinson and Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.
06-14-00101-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | May 7, 2015Background
- Ben (Appellant) and Emma Vinson married in 1999; they signed a premarital agreement (PMA) with schedules identifying separate property, including Ben’s retirement account (listed as CNB/Texas Bank 401(k) ~ $234,000).
- Ben rolled over a premarital 401(k) into a Texas Bank 401(k) in 2002; account records and his testimony show a traced “rollover” balance that grew to $347,206.37 by Dec. 31, 2013.
- The PMA expressly preserved identified separate property and its income/enhancement as separate during and after the marriage and provided for each spouse to retain 100% of their separate property on divorce.
- At trial the court found the PMA valid, confirmed $234,000 of the 401(k) as Ben’s separate property, but held that any appreciation beyond $234,000 was commingled and treated as community property to be divided 50/50.
- Ben appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to treat traceable interest/accumulations on his premarital rollover as his separate property under the PMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ben) | Defendant's Argument (Emma) | Held (trial court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interest/accumulations on Ben’s premarital 401(k) rollover are his separate property under the PMA | The PMA preserves separate property and its increments; the rollover and its growth are traceable and thus remain separate (Ben is entitled to ~$347,206.37) | (Implicit) The court treated post‑PMA increases as commingled community property subject to division | The trial court confirmed $234,000 as separate but found any appreciation above that amount commingled and divided the remainder as community property |
Key Cases Cited
- Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977) (standard that trial court must confine property division to community property)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (abuse-of-discretion standard for divorce property division)
- Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998) (trial court’s division reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. 1996) (erroneous legal conclusion is an abuse of discretion; legal issues reviewed de novo)
- Welder v. Welder, 794 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990) (traceability is dispositive — separate funds remain separate if they can be definitely traced despite commingling)
- Estate of Hanau v. Hanau, 730 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. 1987) (presumption that commingled funds are community unless separate funds can be traced)