Janelle Nicole Landry v. Theodore Stanley Landry
05-20-00575-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2024Background
- The appeal arises from a divorce proceeding between Janelle Nicole Landry (Wife) and Theodore Stanley Landry (Husband).
- At issue is the characterization of two Charles Schwab investment accounts, which the trial court found to be Husband's separate property.
- The appellate court previously reversed the trial court's characterization, finding insufficient evidence to support the accounts' separate character due to gaps in account statement review by Husband's expert.
- The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case, instructing the appellate court to reconsider with all relevant account statements under review.
- On remand, it was established that the missing statements were indeed in the record, but Husband's expert had not reviewed them when testifying to the accounts' character.
- The appellate court again reversed the trial court's characterization and division of the estates and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of Schwab Accounts as Separate Property | Accounts not shown as separate property; expert failed to review all statements | Sufficient evidence exists; missing statements in record support separate property | Trial court's basis insufficient; remand for recharacterization |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Asset Characterization | Expert's review incomplete; no clear and convincing evidence | Evidence in record is adequate; burden met by presence of statements | Husband failed to trace; insufficient for trial court's finding |
| Burden of Tracing Funds to Establish Separate Property | Husband failed to meet burden without expert review of all statements | Burden satisfied by evidence admitted and pattern established | Tracing not proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Preservation of Error for Appeal | Argument on characterization fairly included in submissions | Not preserved for appeal; untimely argument | Argument preserved; merits addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Landry v. Landry, 687 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. 2024) (remanding for further consideration of asset characterization with all account statements)
- Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019) (appellate courts should reach merits when reasonably possible)
- Jacobs v. Jacobs, 687 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. 1985) (reversible error in division mandates remand for new division)
- St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flakes, 595 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2020) (core issues must be broadly construed on appeal)