in the Matter of the Marriage of Amanda Bradshaw and Barney Bradshaw
06-15-00038-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 18, 2015Background
- Amanda and Barney Bradshaw married November 13, 2010; during the marriage they acquired real property at 78 Florey Lake, Kilgore, purchased June 22, 2012.
- Prior to that purchase, the couple lived in a house on Nolan Street that caught fire in February 2012; insurance proceeds (issued in both names) were used to pay off the mortgage and purchase the Florey Lake house.
- Original divorce trial occurred November 12, 2013; trial court entered a final decree then, which was appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals and remanded.
- On remand, the trial court initially awarded each party 50/50, then after a hearing found fault and awarded 80% of the Florey Lake property to Amanda and 20% to Barney; the trial court characterized the Florey Lake property as community property.
- Appellee (Barney), an indigent inmate, submits this brief arguing (1) Amanda failed to preserve her complaint that the Florey Lake property is her separate property and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held (Appellee's position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of 78 Florey Lake (community v. separate) | Florey Lake property is Amanda's separate property (insurance/third-party action cannot change separate character) | Amanda failed to preserve this complaint in the trial court; moreover evidence supports characterization as community property (insurance check in both names, purchase during marriage, contributions by Barney) | Issue not preserved; trial court correctly characterized the property as community property |
| Division of the marital estate (abuse of discretion) | Trial judge abused discretion in awarding 80% to Amanda | Appellant previously got 100% which was reversed; on remand court had evidentiary basis, found fault, and awarded 80/20 — no abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; division is supported by the record (per appellee) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of C.A.S. and D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013) (two-pronged review of property-division discretion)
- Neyland v. Raymond, 324 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010) (standards for reviewing trial court's discretionary property division)
- Salinas v. Rafati, 948 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. 1997) (trial court must have evidentiary basis for findings)
- Toles v. Toles, 45 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001) (standards for abuse-of-discretion review)
- Von Hohn v. Von Hohn, 260 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2008) (some evidence of probative character required to avoid abuse of discretion)
- Wells v. Wells, 251 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2008) (appellate deference to implied findings when none requested)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (when findings are not requested, trial court is presumed to have made necessary findings)