Carle v. Carle

• Decision Date: 29 November 1950
• Docket Number: No. A-2892,A-2892
• Citation: 149 Tex. 469,234 S.W.2d 1002
• Parties: CARLE et al. v. CARLE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 1002

234 S.W.2d 1002

149 Tex. 469

CARLE et al. v. CARLE.

No. A-2892.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 29, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1951.

Dibrell & Gardner, James F. Gardner and Sam J. Dotson, all of San Antonio, for appellants.

Conger, Baskin & Casseb, Paul E. Casseb, San Antonio, for appellee.

HICKMAN, Chief Justice.

The certificate from the Court of Civil Appeals, 8th District, at El Paso recites 'This was an action for divorce instituted by Ollie Mae Carle against her husband, Louis M. Carle. She sought the divorce and a partition of certain properties in the city of San Antonio; part of it she alleged was her separate property and the remainder community property of herself and her husband. She likewise sought to recovery attorney's fees in the sum of $6500.00 against defendant. Plaintiff recovered as her separate property (1) the residence at 344 Park Drive, San Antonio, Texas, and the household furnishings located therein; (2) the service station property together with fixtures and equipment thereon at 5401 South Flores Street, San Antonio, Texas; (3) the property located at 605 Guadalupe Street in San Antonio. The judgment provided as to the property located at 344 Park Drive that it was subject to an offset in favor of defendant in the sum of $7,000.00. Under the verdict it was found $14,000.00 of community funds had been used to pay off indebtedness against the property at Park Drive; $900.00 was likewise found to have been paid out of the community funds on the furnishings in this house adjudged to plaintiff; obligations in the sum of $500.00 on the property at 5401 South Flores Street was found to have been paid out of community funds. These respective amounts, to-wit, $7,000.00, $450.00 and $250.00 were charged against plaintiff's interest in the community property. The balance of the property involved was held to be community property and a commissioner was appointed to sell same under the direction of the court and divide the proceeds in accordance with the judgment under the direction of the court. Defendant perfected an appeal from parts of this judgment. He appealed from that part of the judgment declaring the three pieces of property hereinbefore described as the separate property of his wife, from that portion of the judgment allowing his wife the recovery of an attorney's fee of $6500.00 and charging the same against his interest in the community property.

'Appellee has filed a supplemental transcript herein which in substance shows that the commissioner under the direction and authority of the court has sold all community property in accordance with the judgment, has disposed of all the money arising therefrom except the sum of $2666.79 which under the order of the court he paid into the registry of the court, and was discharged. Some of these distributions were requested by the defendant. The attorney's fees in the sum of $6500.00 have been paid and same were charged against the interest of defendant in the community. The charges made in favor of the community estate for indebtedness paid on obligations against property adjudged to plaintiff as her separate property have been paid to defendant, that is, one-half thereof has been charged as against plaintiff's interest in the community estate and paid to the defendant in the sum of $7700.00.

'In our original disposition of the case we held that the accepting by defendant of the offsets adjudged in his favor as to the property located at 5401 South Flores Street and at 344 Park Drive, each of which piece of property was adjudged to be separate property of plaintiff, estopped him from complaining of the trial judge's judgment decreeing same to be the separate property of plaintiff. To this view in ruling on the motion for a rehearing we still adhere. Further, in regard to the property at 605 Guadalupe Street as to which appellee (plaintiff) has filed a motion for rehearing, we still adhere to the view expressed in the original opinion that defendant is not estopped from claiming that same is community property. In regard to the fee for $6500.00 allowed to plaintiff we granted defendant's motion for rehearing and rendered judgment charging said fee to the community estate of plaintiff and defendant. For further facts we refer to our original opinion and our opinion on our holding granting the motion for rehearing, and likewise as to our reasons for the disposition made of the respective matters in controversy.'

The first and second questions certified are:

'Question No. 1. Did we err in holding that defendant was not entitled to complain on appeal of that portion of the judgment decreeing the property at 344 Park Drive as the separate property of plaintiff and that portion of the judgment decreeing the property at 5401 South Flores Street as the separate property of plaintiff on account of the fact that he accepted and collected from plaintiff's interest in the community estate one-half of the community money used in paying obligations against said property?'

'Question No. 2. Did we err in holding that defendant by his action subsequent to the rendition of the judgment had not estopped himself from complaining of the court's action in decreeing the property at 605 Guadalupe Street as the separate property of plaintiff?'

A litigant cannot treat a judgment as both right and wrong, and if he has voluntarily accepted the benefits of a judgment, he cannot afterward prosecute an appeal therefrom. That is the general rule which appears to be universally recognized. It was announced by this court in the early case of Matlow v. Cox, 25 Tex. 578. The rule is based on the principle of estoppel. It, however, is subject to the exception that '* * * where the reversal of a judgment cannot possibly affect an appellant's right to the benefit secured under a judgment, then an appeal may be taken, * * *.' 2 Am.Jur.,...