Isenberg v. Isenberg, 15282
| Decision Date | 15 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 15282,15282 |
| Citation | 510 S.W.2d 364 |
| Parties | Judy Marie ISENBERG, Appellant, v. Joe Alan ISENBERG, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James E. Coate, Alvin, for appellant.
John R. Banister, III, Kerrville, for appellee.
This is a divorce suit in which appellant, Judy Marie Isenberg, complains only of the failure of the trial court to make any disposition of real property which she complains constituted a part of the community estate owned by her and her husband, Joe Alan Isenberg, appellee, at the time of the dissolution of the marriage, and of the trial court's refusal to allow her to reopen the case and and present additional testimony concerning the character of such real property.
The suit was originally filed by appellee, Joe Alan Isenberg. Appellant filed a cross-action. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court orally announced that it was granting Mrs. Isenberg a divorce, awarding her custody of the children, and requiring Mr. Isenberg to pay, as child support, the sum of $160.00 per month. This oral statement of the court's decision made no mention of the disposition of any property, real or personal.
Five months later, Mrs. Isenberg filed two motions for leave to reopen the case in order to present evidence concerning the character of the real estate in question; 'that a proper interval of time be allowed for the filing of additional pleadings, for discovery and accounting matters'; and that on final hearing the property in question be declared the community property of the parties and be set aside for the use and benefit of appellant until the youngest child of the marriage 'shall reach the age of eighteen (18) years.'
The court subsequently signed a judgment granting appellant a divorce; awarding custody of the children to appellant; ordering appellee to make periodic child support payments; and disposing of the personal property. The judgment expressly recited that the court made 'no finding precluding (appellant) from claiming any real property.'
In her brief, appellant concedes that a reading of the statement of facts 'reveals that the Court was not furnished with sufficient evidence whereby the Court could intelligently determine the exact nature and ownership of the subject real estate . . ..' Under these circumstances, the court clearly was in no position to make the division of the estate of the parties contemplated by Vernon's Texas Codes Ann., Family Code, Section 3.63, and the trial court, therefore, carefully worded its judgment to reflect that the judgment was not intended to adjudicate any claims to real property.
Rule 270, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, vests in the trial court the discretion to allow the reception of additional evidence 'at any time' where it appears to be necessary to the due administration of justice. The exercise of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. Alejandro
...held that res judicata does not apply where the divorce decree does not "consider," or "purport to dispose of" the asset. See Isenberg v. Isenberg, 510 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1974, no writ); Thompson v. Thompson, 500 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1973, no writ); Howle v. H......
-
Stephens v. Marlowe, 06-99-00044-CV
...undivided. See Wilde v. Murchie, 949 S.W.2d at 333; Law v. Law, 792 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex. App.-Houston 1990, writ denied); Isenberg v. Isenberg, 510 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1974, no writ); Thompson v. Thompson, 500 S.W.2d 203, 208-09 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1973, no writ)......
-
Matador Pipelines, Inc. v. Thomas
...the movant in seeking to reopen the case, as well as lack of diligence in failing to offer such evidence at the hearing. Isenberg v. Isenberg, 510 S.W.2d 364, 365-366 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1974, no writ). Appellees' request to reopen is not a part of the record. Therefore, we are unabl......
-
Burgess v. Easley
...trial court must determine the exact nature and ownership of the parties' community property to dispose of it properly. See Isenberg v. Isenberg, 510 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1974, no writ). When it develops after divorce that the trial court did not dispose of all communi......