Susana I. Villalpando v. Armando Villalpando
480 S.W.3d 801
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Susana and Armando Villalpando married in 2003, had two children, and separated when Susana moved to Dallas in 2010; Armando filed for divorce in 2012 (insupportability); Susana counter-petitioned for cruelty.
- Trial evidence: Armando admitted to alcohol problems; Susana and her sister testified to physical and emotional abuse when Armando drank.
- The trial court granted the divorce on the ground of insupportability (not cruelty), divided community property, and ordered child support based on Armando’s reported net monthly resources.
- Property disputes centered on characterization and valuation of multiple real properties (including the Los Alpes and Emiliana Zapata properties), vehicles, personalty, and debts; documentary valuation evidence was limited.
- Susana also claimed entitlement to reimbursement and a reconstituted estate based on alleged fraud by Armando; she requested and received findings of fact and conclusions of law but did not request additional findings when some issues were omitted.
Issues
| Issue | Susana's Argument | Armando's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting divorce on insupportability instead of cruelty | Trial court abused discretion by not granting divorce specifically on cruelty grounds | Court may grant divorce on any ground supported by evidence; discretion to choose grounds | Affirmed: no abuse — insupportability was permissible even with evidence of cruelty (trial court discretion) |
| Characterization of Los Alpes and Emiliana Zapata properties | Both are separate property (Los Alpes his; Emiliana Zapata hers/gift) | Both are community property (purchased or acquired during marriage) | Affirmed: trial court could discredit testimony and classify both as community property; no clear-and-convincing proof of separate title |
| Whether property division was unjust or disproportionate; trial court failed to consider factors or miscalculated debts | Award skewed to Armando, misvaluations and inconsistent debt findings, trial court failed to compute reconstituted estate for alleged fraud | Trial court considered Murff factors, had discretion, and record supports its valuations and distribution; Susana waived additional findings on fraud claim | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in valuation, division, or failure to compute reconstituted estate (waiver of omitted findings) |
| Child support calculation based on Armando’s net resources | Trial court used unsupported/understated net-resources figure; Armando underreported income | Court relied on Armando’s financial statement and tax returns; little evidence of underreporting | Affirmed: sufficient evidence to support trial court’s net-resource finding and resulting support order |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (trial court not required to grant divorce on cruelty even if evidence supports cruelty)
- Clay v. Clay, 550 S.W.2d 730 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977) (trial court discretion in divorce grounds)
- Sharma v. Routh, 302 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (standard for upsetting property division and burden to prove separate property by clear and convincing evidence)
- Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1981) (factors trial court may consider in dividing community estate)
- Evans v. Evans, 14 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (two-step review for child-support and property-division sufficiency)
- Zagorski v. Zagorski, 116 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (factfinder resolves conflicting testimony on property characterization)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support orders)
- Vallone v. Vallone, 644 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1982) (deference to trial court in property division)