Bell v. Bell
| Decision Date | 24 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. B--4505,B--4505 |
| Citation | 513 S.W.2d 20 |
| Parties | Norman L. BELL v. Jacqueline BELL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Rienstra, Rienstra & Dowell, John D. Rienstra, Jr., Beaumont, for petitioner.
Tom Moore Featherston, Port Arthur, for respondent.
This is a divorce action. The trial court granted the divorce and divided the property between the parties. The court of civil appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed and remanded, ordering the trial court to 'take the two corporations into consideration in making a division.' 504 S.W.2d 610.
We reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Norman and Jacqueline were married in November, 1964. Bell Oil Company and Bell Oil Company of Louisiana, both incorporated and wholly owned by Norman, were in existence since about 1957. Book value of their real properties acquired before and during the marriage increased substantially during the period of the marriage. Both parties received salaries from the corporations during the marriage. Jacqueline owned a substantial separate estate at the time of marriage and continued the management of her separate estate during the marriage. All income from her separate property was treated by her as separate, not community property. Jacqueline advanced moneys to the two corporations and to Norman which were taken into account in the trial court's judgment. Likewise, all of her separate property was awarded to her in the trial court's judgment. All of Norman's stock in both corporations was irrevocably pledged to secure the payment of a promissory note payable to his former wife. This note dated June 18, 1964 is payable at the rate of $600 per month, the last payment being due in 1989. Under the trial court's judgment Jacqueline received cash deposits in savings and loan associations in excess of $30,000, a promissory note of a solvent third party bearing interest at the rate of 7 1/2 percent per annum, having a balance due of $34,557.75, payable at the rate of $1,208.95 per month, her own separate property of approximately $150,000, and a judgment against Norman of $61,000. Norman Bell was awarded real property but it is encumbered with liens exceeding $100,000, which he was required to assume. We have balance sheets only in our records. There are no profit and loss statements that would enable us to determine the earnings (profits) from the operation of the business of the corporations.
In his findings of fact that trial court found:
'That regardless of the legal status of such corporations and the nature of the property acquired by such corporations during the marriage of the parties, the Court finds that considering the circumstances of the parties all of the stock or other interest in such corporations should be and is set aside to Norman L. Bell.' 504 S.W.2d 610 at 611.
The court in its Conclusions of Law declared:
'The Court concludes that property acquired by Bell Oil Company and Bell Oil Company of Louisiana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cameron v. Cameron
...according to equitable principles. In many circumstances, equity may require an unequal division of community property. Bell v. Bell, 513 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.1974). Likewise, in extreme cases, equity may require the trial court to award a portion of one spouse's separate personalty to the ot......
-
Vallone v. Vallone
...trial court's discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse has been shown. Cockerham v. Cockerham, supra; Bell v. Bell, 513 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.1974). We have carefully considered the entire record of this case to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in divi......
-
Twyman v. Twyman
...size of separate estates, and the nature to the property." Id. See also Young v. Young, 609 S.W.2d 758, 761 (Tex.1980); Bell v. Bell, 513 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.1974). However, a spouse should not be allowed to recover tort damages and a disproportionate division of the community estate based o......
-
Fuentes v. Zaragoza
...We review property-division issues for abuse of discretion. See Stafford v. Stafford , 726 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex. 1987) ; Bell v. Bell , 513 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex. 1974) ; Barras v. Barras , 396 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). A trial court has wide latitude in......