in the Matter of the Marriage of Amanda Bradshaw and Barney Bradshaw
06-15-00038-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 21, 2015Background
- Amanda and Barney Bradshaw married in 2010; separated in 2013; Amanda sued for divorce in Sept. 2013. No children of the marriage.
- Amanda owned a house at 511 Nolen before marriage; it was destroyed by fire during the marriage and she received an insurance settlement.
- Amanda purchased a new residence at 78 Florey Lake using the insurance proceeds; title issues later arose because Barney’s name appeared on the insurance settlement draft and he performed some labor on properties.
- Initial bench trial (Nov. 2013) confirmed 78 Florey Lake as Amanda’s separate property; after post-trial motions and an appeal, the case was retried with both parties testifying.
- On remand, the trial court first awarded Barney 50% of 78 Florey Lake by letter ruling, later reduced to a 20% interest after additional hearing; Amanda appeals characterization and division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 78 Florey Lake is Amanda's separate property | Amanda: she traced purchase price to pre-marriage separate-property insurance proceeds; thus title is separate | Barney: his name on the insurance check and his labor/contributions justify a community interest | Trial court characterized property as community and awarded Barney a 20% interest (Amanda challenges this) |
| Whether the property division was an abuse of discretion | Amanda: award is unconscionable and unfairly rewards Barney despite his criminal conduct and lack of documented contributions | Barney: (implicitly) entitled to an interest based on claimed contributions and the insurance payment being in his name | Amanda argues the unequal award and characterization should be reversed or remanded; she contends the trial court abused discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinley v. McKinley, 496 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. 1973) (burden to prove separate property and tracing rules)
- Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1975) (requirement to trace separate property through mutations)
- Cochran v. Wool Growers Cent. Storage Co., 166 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. 1942) (uncorroborated testimony may be accepted when clear and uncontradicted)
- Garza v. Garza, 217 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2006) (appellate review of property division: abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (trial court may divide community property unequally for just and right reasons)
- Jacobs v. Jacobs, 687 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. 1985) (trial court must consider rights of both parties in property division)