*1 JENSEN, Petitioner, Robert Lee JENSEN, Respondent.
Burlene Parks
No. C-1220.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. *2 Jackson, Walker, Winstead, any & eval- Cantwell record does not reflect Pew, Dallas, Miller, Jr., and the stock made as of the D.L. Case Jack uation of RU was trial, marriage. per for date of the At the petitioner. of accord- $13.48 share value the stock was Albach, Blume, D. & James Gutow expert ing to Mr. and ac- $25.77 Jensen’s Dallas, Blume, respondent. expert. cording to findings of of fact and conclusions FOR REHEARING ON MOTION as law the trial court are follows: made WALLACE, Justice. FINDINGS OF FACT No- judgment This court’s and of Printing Company, 1. The RU Inc. was 9, 1983, the are and vember withdrawn by Respondent mar- created before the following opinion is substituted therefor. riage parties. of the Petitioner, Jensen, and Re- Robert Lee Printing Company, acquired Inc. 2. RU Jensen, spondent, di- Burlene Parks were Newspaper Enterprises, the stock of 21, May on The decree of vorced 1980. Inc., marriage the days of before 48,455 provided that shares of divorce parties unique opportuni- in a business Co., Inc., Printing acquired by in RU stock ty- marriage, prior Mr. Jensen four months Company, Inc. is not an Printing 3. RU together with in value in such any increase Respondent. ego alter of the during marriage, stock which occurred Company, Inc. not Printing 4. was RU Jensen, separate property of Mr. were the rights in of created fraud of any interest in the and denied Mrs. Jensen community estate. of stock its The court or increased value. (cid:127) remanded, holding Respondent appeals salary paid has been reversed 5. The community compensated adequate that the should be and reasonable. in of stock an enhancement value paid Respondent have 6. The dividends appreciated had been
because such value adequate and reasonable. been time, effort of primarily due toil and paid Respondent have 7. The bonuses S.W.2d 222. We remand Jensen. 629 adequate and reasonable. been court for determination of the trial man key in Respondent 8. was amount, if any, of reimbursement operation Printing Company, of RU community. Inc. 21, 1975, Mr. Jensen formed On March of Print- operations RU 9. The successful (RU) Printing Company, Inc. the RU primarily due ing Company, Inc. were 48,455 per acquired of share $1.56 Respon- toil and effort 16, 100,000 outstanding. May On shares dent. Enterpris- 1975, Newspaper acquired RU es, Inc., to be in what the trial court found LAW CONCLUSIONS OF opportunity.” The Jen- “unique business equitable community was not the 1. The 21, 1975, sepa- July on sens married were Printing RU any shares of owner 3,1979, May and divorced on rated on June Company, Inc. times, Mr. Jen- pertinent At all to re- community was not entitled 2. The operation of key man in the sen was in appreciation of the ceive value company whose RU, holding awas which Inc. Printing Company, shares of RU of the stock consisted of all sole assets opera- to the successful that was due Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Jensen’s Newspaper company. of the tions RU, consisting sala- compensation from re- dividends, $64,065.97 entitled to 3. The was not ry, bonuses in appreciation $95,426.00 1977, $106,143.00 of the ceive value Inc., Printing Company, $115,000.00 in 1979. shares 1978 and bonus, due to benefits, toil and effort fringe dividends and other Respondent. being community items those when received. point impression square first ly treat, divorce, us before is how to This rule a reasonable means of corporate stock spouse owned before assuring fully bewill *3 marriage but which has in increased value community value reimbursed the of as during due, marriage at in part, least sets, i.e., expended, time and effort while at time and of spouses. effort either or both providing the time property same that the separate pro interest of the estate also is community property states have preserved. practical tected and As a mat adopted variations of either “reimburse- ter, this rule will the obviate the need for ment” or “community ownership” theories. to court undertake the onerous and Common to both general theories is the quite impossible often burden that would concept that the community should receive placed be community on it under the own whatever is a paid spouse remuneration to theory ership attempting of to determine for his or her time and effort because the just actually what factors to contributed spouse belongs time and effort of each to the increase in value of the stock and community. Though sharing the a com- proportion. what theo reimbursement conceptual basis, mon the di- two theories ry compensation of is also consistent with verge it when comes to the valuation of the the laws of Texas as found in the Texas community’s against separately claim Constitution, Supreme statutes and Court appreciated owned stock by that has virtue opinions set out below. spouse’s of a time and effort. The “reim- theory provides stock, bursement” that the § Constitution, XVI, 15, The Texas Art. appreciates, as it separate remains the provides property by spouse that owned property spouse. of the owner this Under marriage separate before prop remains the theory, community the is entitled to reim- erty spouse marriage. of during that In bursement for the value the reasonable of Lambert, Welder v. 510, 91 44 Tex. S.W. time and effort of both or either of the (1898), 281 this prop Court decided that all spouses which to contributed the increase erty by held either a husband or wife in value of “community the stock. The marriage separate prop before remains the theory, ownership” hand, on the other erty spouse of such and the of the status any holds that increase in the value the of by to origin be determined the stock as a result of the time and of effort property, of title to by and not the spouse owner community becomes Ibid. This acquisition of the final title. property. consistently Court has adhered to the rule (cid:127) Dakan, expressed in Welder. Dakan v. A writings consideration of the of vari- 305, 620, (1935); 125 Tex. 83 S.W.2d 624 field, ous scholars in this the treatment of Briscoe, 490,109 Creamer v. 101 Tex. S.W. the issue our community property sister Peterson, (1908); Peterson v. 911 595 states, constitutional, and the statutory and 1980, (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 889 — Austin case law of Texas leads to the conclusion Reinle; Henry n.r.e.); writ ref’d 245 theory that the nearly reimbursement more 1952, (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 744 — Waco justice affords to both the n.r.e.). ref’d writ The shares of RLJ stock separate theory requires estates. This separate property thus remain the of Mr. adoption the rule that of Jensen, subject only right of reim will be reimbursed for the value time bursement, any, proven if by Mrs. Jensen. expended by and effort either or both spouses separate to enhance the estate The trial court found that Mr. Jensen either, reasonably adequately reasonably other than that compensat- neces- was sary manage separate to preserve ed expended for his time and effort estate, enhancing less the remuneration received shares. value of salary, sustained, that time and effort in form finding, precludes This if testimony pleadings. or to amend right because additional to reimbursement McLerran, 646 compensation community proper- Kelly Company v. was Karl & 1983). (Tex. ty. S.W.2d es- only offered at trial to Therefore, evidence TEX.R.CIV.P. pursuant the reasonableness of Mr. Jensen’s tablish trial court remand this cause we T. testimony of Mr. compensation was the determining the purpose limited an Mr. Hickman was Wesley reimbursement, Hickman. any, if due to amount expert corporate field of evaluation. toil community as a result of the It his Jensen expended Mr. Jensen toward and talent reasonably compensated, based that but he of RU. From enhancement the stock per- opinion “primarily Mr. Jensen’s ex- toil and talent the value of fur- centage ownership.” He the stock compensa- pended is to be subtracted the stock owner- ther stated without time, toil paid Mr. for such tion Jensen *4 seriously Mr. Jensen ship he doubted that bonuses, salary, in the form of and talent stayed His with RU. would have Any fringe benefits. dividends and other primari- compensation was as to reasonable due remainder is the reimbursement Mr. stock owner- ly upon based Jensen’s reimbursement, any, if community. This salary, ship upon the bonuses and not by trial court shall be distributed to by due received dividends heretofore division addition time, effort of Jensen. toil and parties. made finding that Mr. trial court’s Therefore the is compensation reasonable ROBERTSON, J. Concurring opinion by support. adequate Without without ROBERTSON, Justice, concurring. trial finding of there is no basis for the fact finding “the court’s reached I concur the result to receive the value of not entitled v. Val majority. This in Vallone Court Printing appreciation in shares of RU not (Tex.1968), did lone, 455 644 S.W.2d Inc. that was due to Company, cause to the trial court on remand that respondent.” toil effort of plead the failure to of Mrs. Vallone’s basis 644 reimbursement. relief of affirmative of this case the bur Upon retrial Jensen, like Although Mrs. at 458. S.W.2d charge proving a the shares den of Vallone, plead reimbursement did not upon the will be owned Mr. Jensen cause of ac this Court has remanded Welder, claimant, supra; Mrs. Jensen. majori The justice. tion in the interest of (Tex.1964). Bell, 561 v. 380 S.W.2d Burton for the explanation no ty’s opinion offers only is for the right to reimbursement disposition. different expended toil and effort value of the other than separate estate to enhance had tradi Vallone, courts Texas Until manage to reasonably necessary of constru general rule tionally followed a estate, separate for which preserve the liberally. v. pleadings Cohen ing divorce adequate com community did not receive (Tex.Civ.App. Cohen, 273, 275 194 S.W.2d Vallone, 644 S.W.2d pensation. v. Vallone writ). opin majority no —Austin However, (Tex.1982). right if the begin mark the appeared to ion in Vallone a not proved, lien shall to reimbursement requiring specific policy to ning a shift a separate property to Mr. Jensen’s attach family law matters. pleadings in Rather, may be money judgment shares. However, rise at 466. S.W.2d Bell, supra. v. Burton awarded. was short pleadings requirement specific opinion, down majority handed to lived. the rule of this court long has been It later, a return announces months to thirteen rather than the trial court remand to plead of divorce construction justice a broad the ends judgment when render majority Although ings. a member Such re thereby. will be better served opinion that this Vallone, am the I supply ordered manding been has often
HI Court’s policy return to more liberal
construing pleadings provide divorce will judges with the freedom needed just
reach complex decisions in and sensi family
tive law actions. BROWNLEE, Petitioner,
Michael Graves BROWNLEE, Respondent.
Barbara Ann
No. C-2313.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. 1984. Meer,
Steinberg Generes, & Carl A. John Dallas, Goren, petitioner. Alan Zimmerman, Dallas, respon- Warren dent.
RAY, Justice. summary judgment This is a case. The granted summary judgment court against Ann Barbara Brownlee her former spouse, Brownlee, in Michael Graves Bar- on bara’s suit based breach of a written agreement settlement in an contained agreed judgment divorce. The court appeals affirmed.1 Michael Brownlee con- genuine tends there was a issue material response fact raised his to the motion for summary judgment his affidavit opposition disagree to the motion. We with Mr. judg- Brownlee and affirm the ments the trial court and the court of appeals. ed, publish- appeals opinion pursuant The court was not to Rule TEX.R.CIV.P.