William C. Slicker v. Phyllis A. Slicker
464 S.W.3d 850
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Married ~1974; Wife filed for divorce in 2011; bench trial and final decree entered in 2013–2014.
- Central asset: a 1993 family trust (1993 Trust) naming Husband primary beneficiary; trust income treated as community property, but corpus held multiple assets and many transfers/sales occurred.
- Husband received large sums: >$800,000 withdrawn from a Bancorp agency account (2005–2006) and $991,525 distributed from the 1993 Trust (2007–2012); Husband offered no tracing that these distributions were separate property.
- During pendency, Husband paid himself and the adult son about $66,000 from the Slicker Family Foundation; Husband failed to produce many requested documents and the trial court found substantial discovery noncompliance.
- Trial court found Husband wasted or constructively defrauded the community, reconstituted the community estate at $900,000, awarded Wife $275,000 for waste/constructive fraud, $62,000 for money improperly spent during the divorce, and ordered spousal maintenance of $3,500/month for 10 years.
Issues
| Issue | Slicker (Plaintiff/Appellant) Argument | Phyllis Slicker (Defendant/Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly reconstituted the community estate and awarded $275,000 | Insufficient evidence to support $900,000 reconstituted value; no findings of breach/fraud/waste | Husband dissipated community funds; distributions from trust should be considered in reconstituting estate | Affirmed: evidence supports finding of waste/constructive fraud and $900,000 reconstituted value; $275,000 award not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether $62,000 award for money spent during divorce was supported | Payments were trust-funded attorney fees or proper; standing-order not violated | Payments (~$66,000) were made to Husband and son from the Slicker Family Foundation during divorce; supports violation | Affirmed: record supports finding Husband improperly spent community-related funds during divorce |
| Whether the overall division was just and right given alleged negative community net value | Estate was underwater; additional awards exceed community value and are unjust | Trial court may account for dissipation and reconstituted estate in division | Affirmed: trial court had discretion and evidence to reconstitute and allocate awards; division not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether spousal maintenance award ($3,500/month for 10 years) was proper | Insufficient evidence that Wife is eligible or that Husband’s monthly resources are $17,500 | Wife lacks sufficient property and earning ability, age ~67, limited recent work, mental health evidence; Husband had substantial prior trust distributions | Affirmed: evidence supports eligibility, consideration of statutory factors, and amount/duration as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Schleuter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998) (no independent tort for fraud on the community; remedy is just-and-right division)
- Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard and clear-and-convincing burden when rebutting community presumption)
- Reisler v. Reisler, 439 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (bench-trial standard: legal conclusions reviewed de novo; findings reviewed for sufficiency)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review framework)
- Jacobs v. Jacobs, 687 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. 1985) (reversible error in property division requires material effect on just-and-right division)