in the Matter of the Marriage of Naina Lynne Green and John Bernice McDaniel
12-17-00034-CV
Tex. App.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Naina Green and John McDaniel were married ~15 years; they established and operated "God’s Country RV Park" during the marriage.
- Green introduced a recorded quitclaim deed (Oct. 23, 2012) from McDaniel to Green; the deed recited consideration as "cash and other good and valuable consideration" paid from grantee’s separate property.
- Green testified McDaniel intended the deed as a gift conveying the RV park to her as separate property.
- McDaniel testified he executed the deed because of serious heart problems and intended it only as a testamentary transfer (i.e., to pass on if he died); he said he signed at Green’s arranged attorney’s office and did not receive independent advice.
- Trial court found the deed’s gift presumption rebutted by lack of donative intent, possible fraud/forgery allegations, deed language, absence of independent advice, and continued use of community funds for park upkeep; it characterized the RV park as community property and split it equally.
- On appeal Green argued the quitclaim deed established the RV park as her separate property; the court affirmed the trial court’s characterization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Green) | Defendant's Argument (McDaniel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RV park is Green’s separate property by virtue of the quitclaim deed | The deed and Green’s testimony show McDaniel gifted the RV park to Green (separate property). | McDaniel contends he signed the deed only as a contingency for his death and lacked donative intent; deed was not a free gift. | Court held deed did not provide clear-and-convincing proof of an interspousal gift; RV park is community property. |
| Whether parol evidence (testimony) may contradict deed language about consideration | Green argued deed language controls and McDaniel cannot contradict it at trial. | McDaniel offered testimony about his intent and surrounding circumstances. | Court allowed testimony; donor intent and surrounding facts are relevant to determine whether a gift was made. |
| Whether fiduciary concerns, disclosure, and independent advice affect validity of alleged gift | Green relied on the deed’s presumption of a gift between spouses. | McDaniel pointed to lack of independent advice, questionable disclosure, and possible coercion/influence. | Court found fiduciary-related fairness factors supported rebutting the gift presumption. |
| Standard of proof required to overcome community-property presumption | Green asserted deed created separate-property presumption that she met. | McDaniel argued Green failed to prove separate character by clear and convincing evidence. | Court applied clear-and-convincing standard and found evidence insufficient to overcome community presumption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Skarda, 345 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (deed between spouses creates rebuttable presumption of a gift to grantee)
- Magness v. Magness, 241 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (presumption of gift may be rebutted by fraud, mistake, or accident)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing clear-and-convincing evidence on appeal)
- Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. 1999) (special fiduciary duties between spouses and presumptively fraudulent nature of certain intra-fiduciary transactions)
- Jordan v. Lyles, 455 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015) (party claiming fairness of a fiduciary transaction must show full disclosure, adequate consideration, and independent advice)
- McGalliar v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (fact finder may accept some testimony and reject other parts; credibility/resolution of conflicts are for the trier of fact)