Newberry v. Newberry
351 S.W.3d 552
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Ruel Newberry and Appellee Brisa Newberry married on September 1, 2002 and later obtained a prenuptial agreement.
- The couple moved from Arizona to El Paso, Texas, where they acquired real estate and other assets, funded in part by jobs offered by Brisa’s father.
- Brisa filed for divorce on March 5, 2008; Ruel counterclaimed seeking a disproportionate division of the community estate based on fault.
- The trial court held a multi-date trial (2009) and issued findings on March 8, 2010, finalizing a divorce decree on January 28, 2010.
- Findings of fact attributed adultery and cruel treatment to Ruel, and the final decree distributed the community estate with a disproportionate award to Brisa based on fault.
- Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the adultery and cruelty findings and the fairness of the property division on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the adultery finding legally and factually sufficient? | Newberry argues the sole adultery proof is Brisa’s testimony about a brief, private encounter. | Newberry contends circumstantial and corroborating evidence support the finding of adultery. | Adultery supported; evidence legally and factually sufficient. |
| Was the cruelty finding legally sufficient to support fault-based divorce? | Newberry asserts the evidence did not show willful cruel treatment; pornography alone is insufficient. | Newberry contends ongoing porn use and related conduct, plus other acts, constitute cruel treatment. | Cruelty supported; evidence adequate to support fault-based divorce. |
| Was the community estate division just and right? | Newberry contends the distribution was disproportionate and relied on faulty valuations and debt allocations. | Newberry argues the division was supported by Murff factors and the evidence of fault behavior. | Division not abusing discretion; supported by record; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd., 953 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1997) (legal-sufficiency standard for appellate review)
- Henry v. Henry, 48 S.W.3d 468 (Tex.App.-Hou. [14th Dist.] 2001) (sufficiency review in divorce; credibility favored to finder of fact)
- In re Marriage of Rice, 96 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003) (abuse of discretion in cruelty findings)
- Morrison v. Morrison, 713 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986) (adultery may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- Winkle v. Winkle, 951 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997) (adultery can support a finding of cruel treatment)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (Murff factors for property division discretion)
- Garcia v. Garcia, 170 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard in property division)
- Chafino v. Chafino, 228 S.W.3d 467 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007) (two-step test for abuse of discretion in property division)
- Burney v. Burney, 225 S.W.3d 208 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006) (credibility and discretion in division of marital assets)
- Chacon v. Chacon, 222 S.W.3d 909 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007) (presumption of community property and Murff factors)
- Cantwell v. Cantwell, 217 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1948) (definition of insupportable cohabitation)