Puckett v. Puckett
| Citation | 205 S.W.2d 124 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 6311.,6311. |
| Parties | PUCKETT v. PUCKETT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; A. S. Broadfoot, Judge.
Divorce suit by Geneva Puckett against Earnest F. Puckett. From a portion of the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Cunningham, Lipscomb & Cole, of Bonham, for appellant.
Couch & Couch and Myrtle Hancock, all of Bonham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a portion of the judgment entered in a non-jury divorce suit in which appellant, plaintiff below, assigns error to the action of the trial court in partitioning certain real estate between her and appellee, the defendant in the court below. No question is raised with respect to the decree of divorce entered by the trial court nor in regard to his disposition of personal property involved in the case.
It appears from the record in this case that appellant and appellee were married April 26, 1920, and separated June 28, 1944. On September 5, 1936, the tract of land in controversy, being Lots 47 and 48, Block 14, Stephens Addition to the city of Bonham, was acquired by deed from C. W. Marshall for a consideration of $800 and the payment of the taxes due for that year, of which consideration the trial court found, with support in the evidence, that $750 was paid by Earnest, appellee, from his separate funds, and $50 and the taxes were paid from the community estate of himself and his wife. The court also found that since the acquisition of this property improvements were made thereon with community funds in an amount approximately equal to the original consideration of $750, and in adjusting the equities of the husband and wife in this real estate upon the dissolution of the marital relationship, he awarded Earnest Puckett a one-half interest in the lots in controversy as his separate estate and the other one-half was declared the community estate of himself and wife. Thus, upon the basis of this finding, it will be noted that Puckett's separate and community interest together amounted to three-fourths of the total estate, and his wife's community interest was the remaining one-fourth of the property. The court further found that the total value of the lots in question at the time of the divorce decree was $4,000, a value of $2,500 being placed on the west lot and a value of $1,500 placed on the east lot; that taking into consideration the sums expended upon the lots out of the community estate as improvements, the wife was entitled to about $1,000 equity in the realty and the husband entitled to approximately $3,000. These amounts included the enhancement in value of the lots, which increase in value was awarded to the parties in proportion to their respective shares as found by the court to be owned by each of the parties. The court then proceeded to set aside the west lot valued at $2,500 to Puckett, and ordered the east lot, valued at $1,500, sold and one-third of the proceeds to be paid to Puckett and the remaining two-thirds to his wife.
Appellant takes the position that the trial court committed error in finding that the two lots were partly separate and partly community estate, and in not holding that all of the lots were community estate, subject to a charge in favor of Puckett for the repayment of the portion of the consideration paid by him out of his separate funds at the time the lots were purchased. While our statute, art. 4638, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas 1925, provides that in adjusting property rights in a divorce case the court shall not compel a divestiture of the title of either party to real estate, and the decisions are in conformity therewith, still this statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer
...227 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1949, no writ); Jones v. Jones, 211 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1944, no writ); Puckett v. Puckett, 205 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1947, no writ); Tims v. Tims, 201 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1947, writ dism'd); Smith v. Smith, 187 S.......
-
Lindsay v. Clayman
...estate improved by virtue of the improvements made by the other estate. Dakan v. Dakan, supra, 83 S.W.2d 628(27, 28); Puckett v. Puckett, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 124(5), no writ history (divorce case); Gleich v. Bongio, 128 Tex. 606, 99 S.W.2d 881(6); Burton v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 195 ......
-
Mogford v. Mogford
...Hailey v. Hailey, 160 Tex. 372, 331 S.W.2d 299 (1960); Duncan v. Duncan, 374 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1964, no writ); Puckett v. Puckett, 205 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1947, no Here, the court's order did not divest appellant of title to his separate property. The court's ......
-
Edsall v. Edsall
...is the increase in value of such separate property by reason of the expenditures made as of the time of the trial. Puckett v. Puckett, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 124; Dakan v. Dakan, 125 Tex. 305, 83 S.W.2d 620; Clift v. Clift, 72 Tex. 144, 10 S.W. 338; Hillen v. Williams, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 268......