 Gray's Interesting Cases - September 1999
 
|
1. Vandiver v. Vandiver, No. 13-97-417-CV, not yet published (CA, Corpus Christi). H & W
divorced with the T/C finding that they had accumulated $1.066 mil. in community assets of which
$569,000 (53%) was awarded to W and $497,000 (47%) was awarded to H. (You won't find these
figures in the opinion as I got them from the attys). The T/C also found that an add'l $700,000 was
W's sep. prop. altho H contested claiming that $500,000 was community. In the T/C's findings, the
T/C found that even if the T/C mischaracterized the $500,000, the property division was just and
right. H appealed.
The CA found that the $500,000 was community property. Unless the
mischaracterization has only de minimis effect on the T/C's property division, such a T/C error
requires reversal. In this case the T/C's error increased the size of the community estate by 50% thus
W received 68% of the estate & H 32% (a 36% swing) so naturally the case is reversed for redivision
- right? NO! Since the T/C found that a goof in the $500,000 character would still result in the
award of the $500,000 to W, the division won't be reversed unless H showed an abuse of discretion
which in this case he didn't do.
Comment - In any divorce case where there are findings, always have
the T/C find that the property division is just and right regardless of any mischaracterization of sep.
prop. or the value of community property/debts. Maybe some other CA will agree with Corpus'
reasoning. P.S. Mischaracterizing sep. prop. as community always requires reversal even if you have
the suggested finding.
|
|