Juan Gabriel Espronceda v. Sylvia Sue Handy Espronceda
13-15-00081-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 23, 2015Background
- Marriage of Juan Gabriel Espronceda and Sylvia Sue Handy (married 1997) produced one child (b.1998); parties separated in 2011.
- Sylvia Handy was incarcerated 2010–2012; upon release she alleged significant separate property was missing from the former marital home.
- Appellant (Espronceda) did not appear at the bench trial; the trial court heard only Handy’s testimony on August 11, 2014 and signed a final divorce decree on November 21, 2014.
- Trial court’s decree ordered Espronceda to pay $4,000 in retroactive child support and $300,000 as replacement value for property Handy claimed was taken.
- Espronceda moved for new trial; appeal followed challenging notice/due process, legal sufficiency of Handy’s testimony, appropriateness of replacement-value damages, and abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Espronceda) | Defendant's Argument (trial court / Handy) | Held (trial court) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Due process / notice for retroactive child support | Court heard and awarded retroactive support not pleaded; Espronceda lacked notice and opportunity to defend | Trial court proceeded and treated claims as properly before it | Trial court awarded $4,000 retroactive child support |
| 2. Due process / notice for $300,000 conversion/replacement claim | $300,000 award rested on an unpled tort theory (conversion/replacement) and Espronceda had no notice | Trial court accepted Handy’s testimony and entered award for replacement value | Trial court ordered $300,000 payment to Handy |
| 3. Sufficiency / credibility of sole witness testimony | Handy’s uncontradicted testimony was confusing, inconsistent, and incredible; thus insufficient as a basis for judgment | Trial court credited Handy’s testimony as fact-finder | Trial court relied primarily on Handy’s testimony in entering decree |
| 4. Measure of damages (replacement value vs. market/depreciated value) | Replacement value here yields an unfair windfall because items were old and depreciation was not shown | Trial court accepted replacement-value calculation presented at trial | Trial court applied $300,000 replacement-value award |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1965) (due process notice principles)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice as fundamental to due process)
- Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (due process and notice)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (personal jurisdiction and due process principles cited for notice discussion)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard and appellate review of fact findings)
- Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1982) (pleadings define issues to be tried)
- Shaw Tank Cleaning Co. v. Texas Pipeline Co., 442 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Civ. App. Amarillo 1969) (replacement-value damages and offsets)
- Crisp v. Security Nat’l Ins. Co., 369 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. 1963) (limitations on replacement-value recovery to avoid windfalls)