in the Matter of the Marriage of Christina Lynn Fletcher and Robert Hugh Fletcher
07-15-00176-CV
| Tex. | Nov 9, 2015Background
- Robert (Bobby) Fletcher and Christina Fletcher (now Coker/Odom) married in November 2011; divorce suit filed February 6, 2014; bench trial held September 30, 2014; final decree signed April 6, 2015.
- No children; dispute concerns division and characterization of real property located in Wolfforth/Lubbock County (two lots: an "auction business" lot bought in 1988 and a "veterinary" lot bought in 1986).
- Trial court awarded the veterinary lot (40' x 685') to Christina and the auction lot to Bobby; decree divested Bobby of any interest in property awarded to Christina.
- Bobby contends the veterinary lot was his separate property purchased in 1986 (deed introduced as Respondent's Exhibit 2) and that he never gifted or transmuted it into community property; improvements were made before marriage and Christina gave no documentary proof of conversion.
- Bobby moved for new trial arguing the trial court mischaracterized and divested his separate property; he appeals arguing the divestiture is reversible error requiring reversal and remand for a just and right division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christina) | Defendant's Argument (Fletcher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the veterinary lot is Bobby's separate property or community property | The lot was awarded to Christina by the trial court as part of a just division (implied: community property or otherwise properly awarded). | Bobby asserts the lot was purchased before marriage (1986), supported by a deed and testimony, and was never gifted, commingled, or transferred; thus it is his separate property. | Appellant argues the trial court mischaracterized the lot as community property and divested Bobby of separate property; reversible error if proven. (Appellate brief urges reversal.) |
| Burden and degree of proof to establish separate property | N/A (court presumption favors community property). | Bobby must overcome statutory presumption of community property by clear and convincing evidence and by tracing origin of the property. | Law requires clear and convincing evidence to prove separate property; documentary evidence preferred over mere testimony. |
| Whether divestiture of separate property requires reversal per se or harm must be shown | N/A | If property awarded to the other spouse is proven separate, divestiture is reversible error without separate harm showing. | Appellant relies on precedents holding divestiture of separate property is reversible per se. |
| Standard of review for property division | N/A | Trial court's property division reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate court defers unless division is unjust or lacks evidentiary support. | Appellate review is abuse-of-discretion with consideration of legal/factual sufficiency; mischaracterization causing divestiture is an abuse requiring reversal/remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Cameron, 641 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. 1982) (a trial court may not divest a spouse of separate property in dividing marital estate)
- Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977) (separate-property protections and tracing; mischaracterization that divests separate property requires reversal)
- Pletcher v. Goetz, 9 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App. 1999) (burden on appellant to show trial court abused discretion in property division)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 229 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for division of marital property; legal/factual sufficiency relevant)
- Sharma v. Routh, 302 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App. 2009) (trial court abuses discretion if it awards one spouse’s separate property to the other)