Mozisek v. Mozisek
| Decision Date | 22 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 16393,16393 |
| Citation | 365 S.W.2d 669 |
| Parties | Felix MOZISEK, Appellant, v. Clara MOZISEK, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul Huser, Schulenburg, for appellant.
Armond G. Schwartz, Hallettsville, for appellee.
Appellant Felix Mozisek, defendant in a divorce suit filed by appellee Clara Mozisek, appealed from the judgment only in so far as the property was involved.
Appellant contends the court committed reversible error in failing to order a division of the community and separate property, in granting appellee a money judgment for money advanced out of her separate funds to appellant for improving his separate real estate, and in granting appellee an equitable lien on appellant's property to secure the payment of the money judgment.
It is the duty of the Court of Civil Appeals to indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of a proper exercise of discretion by the trial court in dividing the properties of the parties. Ingham v. Ingham, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 409.
A proper construction of the judgment, in the light of the whole record and the court's recitals in the judgment, shows the court did partition the property.
The community property consisted of a Ford pickup, cows, calves, heifers, sheep, hens, turkeys and a tractor. Appellee, during the marriage, had advanced to appellant out of her separate funds more than a thousand dollars which appellant had used for various purposes.
At the time of the divorce appellee was working as a maid for $15.00 per week. In making a division of property the court may take into consideration the relative condition of the parties, their status as to obligations to meet and their ability to earn a living, etc. Harris v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 489. Obviously, appellee with no land and no home had no use for the community property heretofore mentioned. Although the court recited that appellant's property had been enhanced in value by appellee's contributions from her separate funds, the judgment can be affirmed on the basis of an equitable division. The judgment did not specifically set aside all the listed community property to appellant, but by implication it did so. The court, in its discretion, awarded appellee, in lieu of her interest in said property, a money judgment for $1,468.50.
The provisions of Art. 4638, Vernon's Tex.Civ.Rev.St., do not require the division of property to be equal. The court can be controlled by what the facts may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co.
...the wife for her portion of the homestead. Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306, 126 S.W.2d 626 (1939); Mozisek v. Mozisek, 365 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1963), and Mea v. Mea, 464 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Civ.App., Tyler 1971). * * * However, we hold that the trial court exceeded i......
-
Mullins v. Mullins
...no writ); In re Marriage of Jackson, 506 S.W.2d 261, 267 (Tex.Civ.App. --Amarillo 1974, writ dism'd); Mozisek v. Mozisek, 365 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1963, writ dism'd). While these cases deal primarily with encumbering one spouse's separate property to secure a community ......
-
Buchan v. Buchan
...Amarillo 1974, writ dism'd); Mea v. Mea, 464 S.W.2d 201, 206 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1971, no writ); Mozisek v. Mozisek, 365 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1963, writ dism'd); Smith v. Smith, 187 S.W.2d 116, 120-21 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1945, no writ); Hursey v. Hursey, 165 S.W.2d ......
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...Fort Worth 1964, no writ); Duncan v. Duncan, 374 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland 1964, no writ); Mozisek v. Mozisek, 365 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1963, writ dism'd); Hudson v. Hudson, 308 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin 1957, no writ); Balander v. Balander, 299 S.W.2d 957 (T......