Goode v. Garcia
| Docket Number | 01-20-00143-CV |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Parties | ELMER LAWRENCE GOODE, Appellant v. GERALDINE VARGAS GARCIA, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
On Appeal from the 257th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-25271
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Guerra, and Farris.
This is an appeal from a division of property in a final divorce decree following a bench trial. In two issues, appellant Elmer Lawrence Goode argues that the trial court erred by awarding cash from a bank account and two parcels of real property to appellee Geraldine Vargas Garcia. In both issues Goode contends that the properties awarded to Garcia were his separate property, but even if they were community property awarding them to Garcia was not a just and right division of the marital estate. We affirm.
The parties met in 1999 when Goode was fifty-five and Garcia was eighteen years old. They began living together in August 2000 and married in May 2003. They have three biological children. The oldest child was eighteen years old at the time of trial. The younger two children are twins who were six years old at trial.
In April 2017, the parties separated and Goode filed for divorce. In his original petition for divorce, the live pleading on file at the time of trial, Goode stated that the parties married in May 2003 and are the parents of three children.[1] Goode requested that the trial court appoint the parties as joint managing conservators of the children and grant Goode the right to designate the children's primary residence. Regarding marital property, Goode's petition succinctly stated, "There is no community property for division."
Garcia filed an answer to Goode's petition with a general denial and a request for costs and attorney's fees. She also filed a counterpetition, agreeing with Goode on the date of the parties' marriage and their children and alleging cruel treatment as grounds for divorce. She sought either sole managing conservatorship of the children or joint managing conservatorship with the right to determine the children's primary residence. She asked the court to divide the community estate if the parties could not agree to a division, and she requested a disproportionate share of the community estate as well as her own separate property and reimbursement of community funds that Goode allegedly used to benefit his separate estate.
At a bench trial, Goode testified that his income during the parties' marriage consisted of $3, 500 per month in social security benefits and income from leasing houses on twelve real properties he owned.[2] Goode testified that he owned nine of the properties prior to marriage and he bought three properties during the marriage. He further testified that he earned $10, 000 per month on the rental properties until an unspecified time when most of the houses flooded and became uninhabitable. Goode did not repair the houses, and his rental income was diminished to $2, 200 per month. Goode estimated the value for most of the properties but did not produce any documentary evidence establishing the value of any property. For the three properties purchased during the parties' marriage-properties on Lear Street, Redondo Drive, and Barbil Lane-Goode acknowledged that he purchased the houses with his funds. Regarding the Redondo Drive property specifically, Goode testified he bought that property with "funds [he] already had" that he "had accumulated over the years."
Goode's funds apparently referred to his checking account that he had maintained prior to and after meeting Garcia and which he used for all his dealings. He estimated that the account had "[p]robably about $380, 000" in it before the parties married and "over $60, 000" at the time of trial. He also testified that he deposited the rental income and social security benefits in the account, and he acknowledged that he commingled the funds in his account. Goode did not offer any documentary evidence supporting his testimony about the balances in the account or showing what funds were used to purchase the three properties acquired during the marriage.
Goode testified that Garcia did not work during the parties' marriage. He testified that he supported her and the children after the parties separated, but he acknowledged that he did not repair any of his rental properties for Garcia to live in with the children nor did he offer to do so.
Garcia testified that she did not work during the marriage. When the parties separated, Garcia and the children moved into a women's shelter for three months because Goode abused her and did not provide financial support for her until after the parties attended mediation during pretrial proceedings. Garcia later moved into a one-bedroom apartment with the children. At the time of trial, Garcia worked twelve hours per week cleaning houses and had earned a GED. She asked the court to grant her primary custody of the young twins.
Garcia also asked the court to award her two of the three real properties purchased during the marriage so that she could repair and live in one house and repair and sell the other house. The trial court admitted into evidence Garcia's inventory and appraisement of the three parcels of real property purchased during the marriage. The inventory and appraisement showed values for each of the three properties and for other personal property that she asked the court to award her. Goode did not file an inventory or appraisement of any property.
Garcia further asked the court to award her at least half of the most recent balance in Goode's checking account. The only documentary evidence of the account was admitted by Garcia and showed a list of transactions posted in the account between January 1, 2011, and May 14, 2018, more than a year before trial in August 2019.[3] The most recent balance of the account in May 2018 was $209, 624. In March 2017, the month before the parties separated, the balance was nearly $375, 000.
At the end of trial, the court orally granted the parties' divorce and took the remaining issues under advisement. The final divorce decree dissolved the marriage and appointed the parties as joint managing conservators of the children. Neither party challenges the trial court's appointment of conservators.
The final divorce decree also divided the parties' community property. Garcia was awarded $104, 812 in cash and two real properties-Redondo Drive and Barbil Lane-that were purchased during the marriage. The decree also awarded each party various property in their possession, including cash, vehicles, furniture, clothing, and jewelry. The decree did not include findings of the value of the community estate as a whole or the values for any of the various properties awarded to the parties, other than the amount of cash awarded to Garcia. Neither party filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court. See Tex. Fam. Code § 6.711 ().
Goode filed a motion for new trial arguing that the trial court impermissibly divested him of his separate property and did not divide the community estate in a just and right manner. See id. § 7.001 (). The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c). This appeal timely followed.[4]
Goode organizes his issues based on the type of property awarded to Garcia in the final divorce decree. In his first issue, Goode challenges the monetary award. In his second issue, Goode challenges the award of real property. In both issues, Goode similarly argues that the trial court divested him of his separate property and that, to the extent the property was community property, the trial court's disposition of it was not "just and right."
In a divorce proceeding, we review a trial court's classification and division of property for an abuse of discretion. Lynch v. Lynch, 540 S.W.3d 107, 127 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied); In re Marriage of Stegall, 519 S.W.3d 668, 675 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2017, no pet.) (reviewing trial court's finding that certain cattle were husband's separate property for abuse of discretion). The trial court has broad discretion to divide the marital estate, and appellate courts must indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's proper exercise of its discretion. Lynch, 540 S.W.3d at 127 (citing Murff v. Murff, 315 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981)). A trial court has no discretion, however, to award either spouse's separate property to the other spouse. Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 142 (Tex. 1977) ().
The party challenging a trial court's division of property must show that the court "clearly abused its discretion by a division or an order that is manifestly unjust or unfair." Lynch, 540 S.W.3d at 127 (quoting Barras v. Barras, 396 S.W.3d 154, 164 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied)). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to guiding rules and principles. Id. (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990)).
In family law cases, legal and factual sufficiency challenges are not independent...
To continue reading
Request your trial