1 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0029 7-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
ROS ITA D E L A PA Z, A pp ellan t,

v . A DA N DE LA

PA Z, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza T h is ca s e in vo lve s a n a c ri m o n io u s d ivo rc e b e twe e n a p p e ll a n t , Ro s it a De L a P a z, and appell ee, Adan De La Paz

. Ros it a appeals the final di v or ce decree ent er ed by the tr ial
cour t on Febr uar

y 22, 2007. By

three i ss ues, w hic h c an be cat eg or iz ed proper ly as tw o, Rosita con ten ds tha t: (1) the trial court abuse d its discretion in ma king an unrea sona bleAdan d i d no t app ear at t hi s hea r i ng. 1 2 and ar bit ra ry

di v is ion of the mari tal est ate; and ( 2) sh e w as deni ed her due proces s r ig ht t o b e h e a r d w h e n t h e t r i a l c o u rtd e n i e d h e r re q u e s tfo r

m o r e t i m e t o s e e kc o u n s e l

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Dec em b e r

1 , 2 0 0 4 , R o s i t a fi l e d a n o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n fo r d i v o r c e o n t h e g ro u nds tha t the m arriage h ad beco me in supp ortab le beca use of d iscord or co nf lict o f

person alities. In he r petition , Rosita reque s t ed a tem pora ry restraining order against Ad an, tem pora ry orders c oncer nin g the use of the mar it al proper ty , t empor ar

y ex cl usi v e us e of the mari tal
re side n ce , and temporar y su ppor t, among othe r thi ng s. In addi ti on, R osi ta at tac hed an
a f f id a vit st a ti n g: I bel iev e tha t m y h u sband, Ada n D e La Paz [,] has transfer re d proper ty bel ong ing to our mari tal es tate w it hout mykn ow led g e or co nsentand w it hout ma king anyaccou nting for the p rocee ds f rom d oing so. Based on his histo ry of hav ing done so and hi s s tatement s to m e c oncer nin g our proper ty , I bel iev e he int ends to c onti nue t o do so. Adan w as personal ly

se rv ed w it h a c opy o f the pet it ion on D ecember 1, 2004. On Dec ember

15, 2004, Adan filed hi s o ri g ina l count er-p eti ti on for div or ce, or ig ina l answ er to Ros it a’s peti ti on, a nd a moti on for temporar y orders, w hic h mi rror ed R osi ta’ s req uestfor temporar

y orders. On M ay 18, 2006, the t ri al cour t c onduc ted t he final hear ing i n thi s c ase. A final 1 decree of

div or ce w as si g ned bythe tr ial courton June 2, 2006. The final dec re e aw arded specif ic property to each spou se as the ir sole and sep arate prope rty . Notably, each were
aw arded ( 1) a on e- hal f undiv ide d i nterestin 1533 16th Street i n C or pus Chr is ti , Tex as, and3

(2 ) a one- hal f undiv ide d int er esti n 1537 16th Street i n C or pus Chr is ti

. In ad dit ion , R osi ta
w as aw arded a full int er est in 1541 16 th S treet i n C or pus Chr is ti as her so le and s eparate proper ty

. Adan filed a moti on for new tr ial on Jul y 3, 2006. In his moti on, A dan ex pla ine d tha t he di d notpar

ti ci pate in the May

18, 2006 f ina l hear ing because he w as not p ro v ide d w it h not ice of the tri al settin g. Ada n dem onst rated tha t not ice w as sent to 1541 16t h Stree t in Corpus Christi, w here he an d Rosita reside d du ring the course of the divorce procee dings. Adan s ug g est ed th at R osi ta i nter cept ed th e not ic e and infor med hi m that t h e c ase had alrea d y b e en dropped. F urther more, Adan arg ued t hat t he tr ial co urt aw arded R osi ta proper ty thatw as his se par ate p ro per ty

. In s uppor

t of hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial , Ad an e xec u te d an af

f id a vit whe re he st a te d th e fo llo wing: I w a s no taw a r e of t h e tr i a l se t t i n g i n th i s ca s e o n M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 6

. I f a noti ce w as mail ed to me at 1541 16 th S tr eet, Cor pus Chr is ti , Tex as 78404, I di d notr ecei v e i t, nor

di d I hav e any other noti ce of t hat set ti ng . I w as not the o nly person re si din g i n tha t hou se at the ti me. A mong othe rs , my w ife, Ros it a D e L a P a z, th e P eti ti oner i n thi s c ase, w as li v ing there. I w oul d not have bee n expecting a not ice, since m y w ife ha d led me t o believe tha t this cas e, w hic h w as filed i n 2004, had been drop p e d

. I als o nev er r ecei v ed a noti ce that a j udg ment had been entered in this case. I onl y lear ned of

i t on June 29, 2006, w hen I w ent to pa y tax es on th e hous e w her e I w as li v ing and found out t hat i t w as n o l o n geri n my name. I had l iv ed w it h my w ife and chi ldren i n tha t hou se cont inu ousl y throug hout the d iv or ce proceed ing s a nd si nce the d ecree w as si g ned.

. . . . The r eal proper

ty at 1541 16 th Str eet, Co rp us Chr is ti , Tex as, thatw as a wa rd e d t o m y wi fe wa s a c t u a ll y m y s e p a ra t e p ro p e rt y. I o wn e d itb e fo re we w er e mar ri ed. The r eal proper ti es at 15 33 16t h St re et an d 1537 16th Street, w hi c h w ere aw arded h alf t o me a nd h al f t o my w i fe, a r e ow ne d by

my m o t h e r. I h a d o wn e d t h e m b ri e f ly, b u tt h e y we re t ra n s fe rr e d t o m y n e p h e w, Rob ert De La PazAl v ar ez , w ell before the d iv or ce took pl ace, and he l ater transfer re d the m to my mother

. I had g otten them from my si ste r, Terr

y , as myse par ate proper

ty [.] No communi ty funds w er e us ed to purchas e i t fromR osi t a an d Adan’ s m ar r i age l i cense was i ssued on Sept em ber 6, 1994, and w as f i l ed i n t he Nueces 2 C ount y pub l i c r ecor ds on Sept em ber 12, 199 4. 4 her . The proper

ty w as ex chang ed among myf amil y m embers d ependi ng on w ho c oul d k eep up the tax es at anygi v en time. T he trans fer to my nephew w as no t don e w ith any inten t to def raud the com mu nity and w as ne v er part of the c ommunit y

proper ty

. Ex ceptfor a l it tle money appl ied to proper

ty tax es, no funds of ours w er e ex pended on th e proper ty

. W e putmor e money into th e ba kerythatmy w ife claims a s her sepa rate pro perty than we did in the real proper

ty at 1533 an d 1537 16th Street.

. . . . The di v is ion of the act ual communi ty est ate is dis propor ti onatel y i n fav or of myw ife. The tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y denied Adan’ s motion f or newtri al on Au g ust2, 2006. On A ug ust11, 2006, Adan fil ed a moti on for lea v e of cour t and an amended moti on for
new tr ial , adv anci ng many

of the s ame arg uments as co ntai ned i n the ori g ina l moti on for
new tr ial but w it h addi ti onal anal y si s a nd documentar y ev ide nce. Not abl y , in hi s a mended
mo tion for new trial, Ada n stat ed th at t h e m a rriage be tw een he an d Rosita occu rred in 1995. The tr ial co urt sig ned an order g ra nti ng Adan’ s mot ion for l eav e and amended moti on for new

tr ial on A ug ust22, 2006. The order ac know led g ed th at t he par ti es had agreed to the m otion and thatthe trial court’s J u n e 2 , 200 6 f inal de cree w as invalid beca use Ad an n eithe r received no tice of nor participa ted in the ea rlier trial setting. Th us, the J une 2, 2006 final dec re e w as v acat ed. The tr ial co urt s et t he c ase for a final hear ing on D ecember 15, 2006. R osi ta t hen f ile d a f ir s t a m e n d e d ori gin a l p e ti ti o n fo r di vorc e on No vem b e r 21 , 2 0 0 6 . In th is f ili n g, Ros it a all eg ed that she and Adan w er e marr ied by common l aw on J anuar

y 24, 1989, and thereafter entered i nto a ce re monial m ar ri ag e on September 10, 1994. Atthe sc hedul ed

25

Decem ber 15, 2 006 h earing, the t rial court grant ed Rosita ’s req uestfor mo re time to retain
coun sel. The final hear ing w as then re sc hedul ed for Febr uar y 2, 2007. Pr ior

to openi ng arg uments , R osi ta req uest ed additi onal time from t he tr ial co urt t o retai n c ounse l, but her
re q uestw as deni ed. After hear ing arg uments , t he tr ial co urt t ook the mat ter un d er adv is ement. In the mean ti me, Ada n s u b m it te d a propose d final di v or ce decree. On Febr uar y 19, 2007, Ros it a fil ed obj ect ion s t o Adan’s propos ed final dec re e of di v or ce. I n her obj ect ion s, Ros it a al leg ed th at A dan’ s p ro posed di str ibu ti on of the mari tal es tate w as unfair bec ause: ( 1) the propose d decr ee order ed th e s ale of 1541 16 th S tr eet, w her e s he had l iv ed for ov er

fifteen y ears; and (2) it div est ed her of her p re v iou sl y g ra nted communi ty int er est in 1533 and 1537 16th Street w hil e Adan re cei v ed “ all of the i nteresti n the othe r tw o hous es acq uired dur ing thei r marr iag e, 15 33 and 1537 16 th Str e e t. ” R osi ta further alleged th at on ce the hom e a t 1 541 16th Streetw as sold an d all encu mb rance s w ere re mov ed and fees w er e pai d, s he w oul d onl y be e nti tl ed to about$5,0 00. Over Rosita’s objection s, the trial court sig ned a f inal decre e of div orce on Februa ry 22, 2 007, whi ch subs tanti all y matc hed Ad an’ s p ro posed dec re e. The di v or ce decree it emiz ed th e s ole and separate prop erty of each spouse and order ed th e s ale of 1541 16 th Stree t w ith the procee ds to be split by the pa rties o nce all o utsta ndin g en cum bran ces w ere re mov ed and all fees as soc iat ed w it h the proper ty w er e pai d. How ev er , t he dec re e di d not
re ferenc e the proper

ti es at 15 33 and 1537 16 th S tr eet. On March 9, 2 0 07, Rosita f iled a m otion for new trial, asserting that the trial court deni ed her

due proces s b y

req uir ing her to proce ed at the Febr uar y 2, 2007 fina l hear ing
w ithou t allow ing her a dequa te time t o retain coun sel, an d tha t, as a result o f the trial court’s6

deni al of he r due proces s ri g hts , she los t all of her co mmunity

i nteresti n tw o of the house s on 16t h St re et. The tr ial co urt di d notr ule on Ros it a’s moti on for new tr ial ; t her efore, itw as ov er ru led by

operati on of l aw . See T EX . R. C IV . P. 329b( c)

. This appeal ens ued. II. D U E P ROCE S S A ND R OSI TA ’ S M OT I ON FO R C ONT I NUA NCE By her seco nd issue , Ros it a a rg u e s thatbyden y ing her additio nal tim e to reta in
couns el at t he F ebr uar y 2, 2007 fina l hear ing , t he tr ial co u rt p re v ented her from bei ng hea rd me anin gfu lly . Rosita f urthe r arg ues th at he r lack of p ro f ic ie ncy in the English lan g u a g e a n d h e r l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e o f t h e l a w c a u s e d h e r t o b e “ u n h ear d or misint erprete d,” thu s co nstitu ting a d enia l o f h er d ue proce ss rights. A dan , procee ding pro
se on appe al, arg ues that the record c lea rl y est abl is hes that Ros it a understo od w hat s he
w as doin g at the Fe brua ry 2 , 200 7 f inal hea ring; the refore, she w as notd enie d du e proce ss of law

. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e rev iew

a deni al of a con ti nuanc e under an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. See Vi llegas v. Car

ter , 711 S.W .2d 624, 626 (Tex

. 1986)

. The tr ial cour t’ s act io n in de n y ing
a con tinua nce wi ll not be d isturbe d on app eal un less the recor d d is c loses a clea r abuse of dis creti on. Id. A tr ial cou rt a b u se s it s dis creti on i f it act s i n an ar bit ra ry and
unre ason able man ner or w hen it acts w ithou t referen ce to an y g uiding rules or principles. Dow ner v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5). A moti on for cont inu ance maynot be granted “e x ceptf or su ff ic ien t c ause suppo rt ed b y af f idavit, or by

conse nt of

the pa rties, or by ope ration of law .” T EX . R. C IV . P. 251; O’Con nor

v. O’Con nor

, 245 S.W .3d 511 , 516 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 07, no pe t.).7

Abse nce of c ounse l, sta ndi ng alo ne, is not g ood caus e for a cont inu ance. T EX . R. C IV . P. 253; O’Con nor

, 245 S.W .3 d a t 5 1 6

. W hen w it hdr aw al of couns el is the g ro und for cont inu ance, the mov ant mus t s how that failu re to be repr esent ed by co unsel at tr ial w as not d ue to hi s o r her

ow n faultor

neg li g ence. Vi

llegas , 711 S.W .2d a t 626

. The Vi llegas co urt s tated that : “The ri g ht t o c ounse l is a v alu abl e r ig ht; it s unw ar ra nted deni al is r ev ersi ble er ro r. Therefore, w hen a tr ial co urt al low s a n att or ney to
v olu ntar il y

w it hdr aw , i t mus t gi v e the party time to secure newcounsel and ti me f or the new co unsel to inv est ig ate t he c ase and prepar e for tr ial .” Vi llegas , 7 1 1 S

. W

. 2 d at 626 (c it ati ons omit ted)

. M o re ov er , i n rev iew ing the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of a moti on for continu ance, the Aust in Cou rtof Appeal s h as noted that there i s n o mech ani cal tes t for deter mini ng w hen t he deni al is so arbi trar y as to v iol ate due proces s. Guer re ro -R am ir

ez v. Tex. Sta te Bd . of Med. Exam iners , 867 S.W .2d 9 11, 9 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1993, no writ) (c it in g Ung ar

v. Sar afite , 376 U.S. 575 , 591 (1964 )). Inste ad, the review ing court must
cons ide r the c ircums tanc es pr esent ed to the tr ial j udg e at the ti me the re q uestw as made. Id. (cit in g Ung ar

, 376 U.S. at 59 1). B. Discuss ion At t he F ebr uar

y 2, 2007 fina l hear ing , t he foll ow ing ex chang e too k p lac e w it h respe ct to Rosita’s failure to reta in coun sel: T HE CO UR T : A ll ri gh t

. Ar e yo u re a d y? MR S. D E LA PAZ : Y eah. T HE CO UR T : O k a y. MRS. DE LA PAZ: ButI d on’t have a lawy er beca use I tried to get a lawy er.

T hey said it w as too quick and it w ould be som e da y s.8 And I sa id that if the y

g iv e me 30 day s s o I can g et a lawy er , bec ause they

co uld n’t

— T HE CO UR T : W h e n d id yo u st a rtlo o k in g fo r a n a t t o rn e y? MR S. D E LA PAZ : As soon as they tol d me w hen I g ot ou t of there.

. . . . T HE COURT: T hat w as ba ck in Decem ber? M R S. D E LA

P AZ : Y es , ma ’ am . THE CO UR T: So y ou had more than 30 day s, be ca u se De ce mber

15th— MR S. D E LA PAZ : And they w er e tel li ng me they were in a —t h e y hav e a cas e. So—

. . . . M R S

. D E L A P A Z : Y eah. But he said thath e ’ s b u s y , t h e a t t o r n e y . And

then I cal led somebody els e cl ose to w her e I w or k, and he s a i d h e h a d a c a s e . A n d I c a l l e d s o me bodyel se, and they had a cas e. So they sa id I hav e to w ait

. So I jus t c ame to t e ll y ou, y ou k now , g iv e me atl east—y ou know, I w ill try

this next time if you gi v e me one more chanc e. THE C OU RT: This has been si nce Augus t th a t we’v e been tr y ing to g et t his ca se heard. MR S. D E LA PAZ : But I don ’tkn ow w hy they w ant t o— TH E C O U R T: Aug ust , September

. W e’v e g ot Oct obe r, al l of

Novembe r, all of

Decem ber, all of

Ja n u a ry. W e’re in F e b ru a ry. MR S. DE LA PAZ : But I don’ t know w hy they w ant to open it

. The w ay y ou seale d the things that you gav e me , my husba nd d idn’t li ke it

. So he came a nd— T HE COURT: W ell, tha t’s w hy w e set it for f inal hea ring, to ma ke it all9 c or rec t. I d on ’ t k no w

i f I ’ m g oi ng t o orde r

t he s am e things, b u t w e ne ed to have this case he ard. W e’re g oi ng t o g o for

w ard. L etme ta k e c are of t he res t of m y d o c k e t

. T a k e a se a t , M[ r] s . De L a P a z.

. . . . THE CO UR T: W hat I ’m t hin ki ng i s t hat e ven i f I proce ed and g o to final hear ing an d m ake a r uli ng , y ou k now , t hat’ s n ot g oin g to sto p M[r

]s. De La Pazfrom g etti ng an a ttor ney at t h a t p o i n t a n d fi l i n g h e r mo t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l sa y ing tha t she was not represe nte d an d all the se oth er things. So I don’ t k now

w hat t o do. The probl em i s, M[ r] s. De La P a z, on th e oth er hand, y ou’ v e had ev er

y opportu nity

to g et y our

att or ney si nce September . No, real ly Augus t, y ou k now . And I hav e ev er

y righ t to proceed w it hout y ou hav ing an a t t o rn e y t o d a y. MR S. D E LA PAZ : Can y ou g iv e me one mor e c hance ? A nd I promis e y ou

I ’l l h a ve a n a t t o rn e y. TH E C OU R T: Let me se e. Ok ay . Si nc e Au g us t 29 th th ere w as a

moti on for cont inuance. Se ptember 29th i t w as cal led for tr ial and M[ r] s. De La Pazr eq uest ed—I g uess y our attor ney re q uest ed to w it hdr aw . So w e re setthi s mat ter for ano the r day. At tha t poin t in time y ou kn ew tha t this c a s e w a s go in g t o b e se ta n d t ri e d

. So we h a ve Octob er, Novembe r, Decem ber. W e cam e ba ck in Decem ber. You w ere told to com e ba ck. All of Ja nua ry and n ow w e are in Feb ruary. Th at’s w hat , f iv e, six mo nth s? M R S. D E LA

P AZ : Y es , ma ’ am . Throug hout the course of this ca se, R osi ta ha s b een repr esent ed by four different attor ney s a t di ff er ent t imes

. At l easttw o of the attor ney s w it h drew at Ros it a’s r eq uest

. Rosita d id not spec ific all y ex pr ess to the t ri al cour t t hat s he w as dil ig ent i n procur ing
re pr esent ati on pr ior

t o t h e F ebr uar

y 2, 2007 fina l hear ing

. She merely st ated that she10

made a coupl e of ph one cal ls to loc al attor ney s. She did not spec ify w hen s he beg an to search for legal repre sent ation , nor did she testif y as to ex actly w hom she con tacte d. It is cl ear from t he record before us and the tes ti mony adduc ed at the Febr uar y 2, 20 07 final hea ring tha t Rosita w as no t represe nte d at the h earing d ue to her decision s t o hire and f ire
sev er al different attor ney s. See Vi llegas , 711 S.W .2d a t 626

. The r ecord furt her

r eflect s t hat t he tr ial co urt and Adan’ s t ri al couns el q uest ion ed Ros it a aboutthe acc umulat ion of p ro p e rt y i n the mar it al est ate, and t hat s he prov ide d cog ent, alb eitarg umentati v e, an sw ers t o the q uest ion s. Further more, R osi ta pa rt ic ipa ted in the cross -e x aminat ion of Adan and nev er

di d req uestan i nter preter

. It is cl ear from our
re v iew of the record tha t R osi ta und e rst o o d the nature of the proceed ing s a nd th at he r p ro f ici e n cy w it h th e En glis h la n gua ge was su f f ici e n t t o rep r e s e n t h e rse lf atth e he a rin g. Therefor e, ba sed on th e f o re g oin g , w e c annot conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n deny ing R osi ta’ s o ra l moti on for cont inu ance. See i d. Accordingly , we ov er ru le her

se cond is sue. III . T H E T RI A L C OURT ’ S D I VI SI ON OF TH E M A RI TA L E ST A TE In he r firs t i ss ue, Ros it a ass erts that the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n di v idi ng the c ommunit y

proper ty of the mar it al est ate. Spec ific all y , R osi ta arg ues that: ( 1) the tr ial
cour t’ s d iv is ion of the mar it al est ate w as based on ev ide nce that w as not cr edi ble ; and ( 2) she w as “t aken adv antag e of” at the Febr uar y 2, 20 07 final hear ing bec ause she w as not
re pr esent ed by

co unsel

. In pa rt ic ula r, R osi ta compl ain s about the tr ial cour t’ s d iv is ion of the prop erti es at 1533, 1537, and 1541 16th Street as desc ri bed in the f ina l div or ce decree. Adan c ounters b y

arg uin g that : (1 ) the p ro per ti es hav e been i n h is family for o v er forty11

y ears; (2 ) the p ro per

ti es w er e transfer re d to his so n mor e tha n tw o y ears b e f or e R osi ta f iled he r orig inal pe tition for div orce; an d (3) no com mu nity f und s w ere used to pu rchase
or mai ntai n the proper

ti es. A . St and ard o f Rev iew The Tex as Fami ly

C ode req uires the t ri al cour t to “order

a div is ion of

the est ate o f the p arti es in a manner thatthe cour

t dee ms j ustand ri g ht, hav ing due re g ard of t he r ig hts of each party . . . .” T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 7.0 01 ( Ver non 200 6)

. W e rev iew the tr ial
cour t’ s d iv is ion of proper

ty i n a d iv or ce decree unde r an abus e of di sc re ti on s tandard. Mu rf f v . Mur ff , 615 S.W .2d 6 96, 6 98 ( T e x. 1981)

. “M athemati cal preci si on i n di v idi ng prop erty on d iv orce is usua lly not po ssible.” Id. at 700. W ide l ati tude and di sc re ti on rest s
w it h t h e t r i a l c o u rt , a n d i t “ i s e mp o w e r e d t o u s e i t s l e g a l k n o w l e d g e a n d i t s human und erstan ding and ex perien ce.” Id. W e w il l re v erse on appe al onl y i f the proper

ty di v is ion i s s o d i s p ro p o rt i o n a t e a s t o b e ma n i fe s t l y u n j u s t a n d u n fa i r . Smit h v . Sm it h , 22 S.W .3d 140 , 143 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 0, no pet. ). B. A pp licab le L aw The Tex as Fami ly Cod e prov ide s that proper ty poss ess ed by

ei ther sp ouse dur ing
or on the dissolution of ma rriag e is presu me d to be com mu nity prop erty unle ss the spo use ca n p ro ve by

cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that the p ro per ty i s h is or

her se par ate proper ty

. T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 3

. 0 0 3 ( V e r n o n 2 006) ; see Boyd v. Boyd , 131 S.W .3d 605, 612 ( Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 2004, no pet.)

. “C lea r and conv inc ing ” ev ide nce means the measure or deg re e of proof t hat w il l produce in the mind of t he tr ier of fact a fir m bel ief
or co nv ic ti on as to the tru th o f the al leg ati ons soug ht t o be est abl is hed. In re C.H. , 89A tt a c h e d to R o s ita ’s m o tio n f o r n e w tr ia l, a m o n g o th e r t h in g s , w a s a b ir th c e r tif ic a te f o r th e c o u p le ’s 3 on l y ch i l d. T he b i rt h c ert i fi c ate i nd i c ates tha t the c hi l d w as b orn on Ja nu ary 4, 19 90 , an d t ha t sh e w as bo rn to “M r. a n d M rs . A d a n D e L a P a z.” R o s i ta a rg u e d th a t th i s d e n o ta ti o n o n th e b i rth c e rti fic a te is s u ff i c i e n t t o est abl i sh t hat t he co upl e he l d t hem sel v es out t o be m ar r i ed p r i or t o t hei r cer em oni al m ar r i age on Sept em ber 10, 199 4. 12 S.W .3d 1 7, 25 (Tex . 200 2) ; Mock v. Mock , 216 S.W .3d 3 70, 3 72 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 2006, no pet .)

. A par

ty se eki ng to re but t he c ommunit y pr esumpt ion must trace the a ss ets on hand during the m arriage back to prop erty tha t is separat e in chara cter. Cockerham v. Cocker ham , 527 S.W .2d 1 62, 1 67 ( Tex . 197 5) ; Boyd , 131 S.W .3d at 612. Trac ing i nv olv es est abl is hin g the separate o ri g in of the proper ty throug h ev ide nce show in g the ti me and
means by

w hic h t h e spouse or ig ina ll y obta ine d pos ses si on of the proper ty

. Boyd , 131 S.W .3d a t 612

. The burden of trac ing is a di ff ic ult , butnot impos si ble , burden t o s ust ain

. Lathamv. Al

li son , 560 S.W .2d 481 , 484 (Tex. Civ . App .–Fo rt W orth 19 77, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ). W e are to re sol v e any

doubtas to the c har act er of the prop erty

in f av or of the communi ty est ate. Akin v. Akin , 649 S.W .2d 700 , 703 (Tex. App .–Fo rt W orth 1983 , w rit ref ’d n.r.e); Con tr er as v. Con tr

er as , 590 S.W .2d 2 18, 2 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1979, no w ri t)

. C. C har act eriz at io n of t he Pro per

ti es In his amended moti on for newtri al, Adan prov ide d, among other thi ng s, copi es of deeds co rrespon din g to tw o of the three proper ti es in q ues tion—15 33 and 1537 16 th Street— and a tax

r etur n j oin tl y

fil ed by the coupl e in 1990. On t he ta x r etur n, R osi ta an d Adan d esi g nated that they w er e mar ri ed and w er e fil ing a j oin t t ax r etur n. 3 1. 15 33 an d 1537 16 th St reet W i t h r e s p ectto t h e p ro p e rt y a t1 5 3 3 1 6 t h S t r e e t , A d a n r e fe r e n c e d a c o p y o f a spec ial w ar ra nty

deed re flect ing thatTere si ta D e La Paz , hi s s is ter , c onv ey ed th e proper ty13

to Ad an o n Febru ary25, 19 94. The dee d f urthe r stated thatthe pro perty w as Ada n’s “s eparate p ro per

ty and est ate .

. . . ” Adan pai d $10. 00 as co nsi d e rati on for the
conv ey ance, but the d eed does not re flect that Adan p aid addi ti onal moni es to ac q uire the proper ty

. At t he F ebr uar

y 7, 2007 fina l hear ing , Adan testi fied that his m other liv ed at 1533 16th Street, and t hat h e ac q uired th e proper ty before he mar ri ed R osi ta. The deed c or re spond ing to the p ro per ty on 1 537 16t h S tr e e t ind ic ated that Adan acq uired th e proper

ty from R ay

C lar k Ha n ki ns on Oc tober 22, 1996, for $10. 00 consid eratio n. Rosita te stif ied atthe Feb ruary 7 , 2 0 0 7 f inal he aring that Ad an’s sister, Del ia Y bar ra , l iv ed at 1537 16 th S tr eet. The record reflect s t hat o n M ay 10, 2002, Adan conveyed both 153 3 and 153 7 16t h Stree t to his son, Robe rt De La Paz Alv arez, Jr . In this dee d, Adan identif ied himself as “a single ma n” and as the owner of both prope rties. Late r, on May 28, 200 3, R obe rt conveyed the prop erties to Juan ita De La Pa z , Ada n’s mo the r. 2. 15 41 1 6th Street In hi s p ro posed di v is ion of proper ty fil ed w it h the tr ial court , Adan i ncl uded a copy of an “ ASSU MP TION W AR RA NTY D EED W ITH VEN DO R’ S LI EN ” cor re spond ing to the proper ty at 1541 16 th S tr eet. This deed re flect ed th at A dan, as “a si ng le man,” ac q uired the proper

ty at 15 41 16t h St re et fro m Frank and G enev a Luc ero Loera on June 10, 1 993, for $10. 00 i n c onsi der ati on and an ass umpti on of t he re maini ng bal ance of $2 6,000 on th e note ass oci ated w it h the proper ty

. Adan a dmitted a t the Febr uar y 7, 2007 fina l hear ing that both he and Ros it a pai d on the n ote. F urther more, R osi ta t est ified thatsh e pai d $451 per m o n t h t o h e lp A d a n p a y fo r t h e p ro p e rt y. Throug hout the c ourse of the div or ce pro ceedi ng s, Adan h as arg ued t hat t he th re eAdan t est i f i ed t hat at t he t i m e of t he f i nal hea r i ng, he wor k ed f or G ar ci a’ s H ol i da y T ou rs as a 4 m echani c. A copy of Adan’ s pay st ub f r om G ar ci a’ s H ol i day T our s f or t he week ofApr i l 4, 200 6 t o Apr i l 10, 2006, r ef l ect s t hat Adan m ade $416. 59. 14 prop erties—1 533 , 153 7, and 1541 16th Stree t—ha v e bee n in his fam ily since 196 2. He has state d tha t the rea son the p rope rties were co nvey ed to Robe rt in 2 002 w as be cause Ada n w as un able to pay the taxes o n the prope rty . Adan f urthe r stated thatthe fam ily
re g ula rl y co nv ey ed proper

ty a mo n g s t t h e ms e l v e s b ased on w hic h famil y member co uld pay the app licable prop erty taxes. Despite A d a n ’s sta tem ent s, neith er party has ade quately traced the f und s used to purch ase th e three prope rties to esta blish the prope rties as the ir sepa rate pro perty, nor have they establ is h e d t hatthe pro pertie s w ere acquired be fore marr iag e or as a g ift or

beq uest

. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 3.0 01( 1) , ( 2) ( Ver non 200 6)

4 (p ro v idi ng that proper

ty is a spous e’s separate proper ty if it w as ow ned or cl aimed by the spous e before mar ri ag e or i f the proper

ty w as acq uired dur ing mar ri ag e by “ g ift, dev is e, or desc ent” ); see a lso Mock , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t 373 (holding thattestim ony that asse ts are sepa rate pro perty w ithou t any tracing is insuf f icient to rebut th e com mu nity presu mp tion). In add ition, th e record do es no t cont ain evidence provi ng that Frank a nd Ge neva Luce ro Loe ra and R ay

C l ar kH an k i ns a r e me mb ers o f t he D e La P azfam i l y . Th us , Ad an’s
arg ument t hat a ll three proper ti es hav e been in his famil y si nce 1 9 62 i s u nder mined. Beca use the record su gg est s t hat A dan and R osi ta w er e mar ri ed as ear ly as 1990, and becau se nei ther

par ty traced the funds us ed to purchas e the proper ti es, w e c oncl ude t hat the c ommunit y

presumpt ion hol ds and t hat t he proper ti es in q uestion are par t of the communi ty

es tate. See C ock

er ham , 527 S.W .2d a t 167 ; Boyd , 131 S.W .3d a t 612

. D. Jo in t Ten ancy

an d 1533 an d 1537 16 th St reetIn h e r m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l , R o s i ta d o e s n o t c o m p l a i n a b o u t t h e tri a l c o u rt’ s d i v i s i o n o f 1 5 4 1 1 6 th 5 St r eet

. Fur t her m or e, on appea l , R osi t a’ s ar gum ent s cent er on t he t r i al cour t ’ s t r eat m ent or l ack t her eofof 1 5 3 3 a n d 1 5 3 7 1 6 th S tr e e t; s h e f a ils t o e x p la in h o w t h e t r ia l c o u r t a b u s e d it s d is c r e tio n in o r d e r in g th e s a le o f 1 5 4 1 1 6 th S tre e t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38

. 1(h ).

A sui t f or par t i t i on o ff or m er com m uni t y pr oper t y i s t he p r oper m eans ofdi v i di ng p r oper t y bet ween 6 te n a n ts i n c o m m o n . H a r re ll v . H a r

re ll , 69 2 S

. W

. 2d 87 6, 87 6 (T ex . 19 85 ) ( pe r cu ri am ).

15 As previously

m ent ione d, the t rial cou rt, in its fina l div orce de cree, did not ref eren ce 1533 an d 1537 16th Street and itorder ed th e s ale of 1541 16 th S tr eet w it h the proceed s to be sp li t among st the p arti es after all fees are pai d and encumbrances r emov ed. 5 Tex as cour

ts hav e hel d tha t w hen a cour t fail s t o di v ide proper

ty at the t ime of the d i v o r c e , t h e e x-s p o u s e s b e c o m e t e n a n t s in co m m o n o r j o in to wn e rs o f t h e p ro p e rt y. In 6 re Marri age of Notash , 118 S.W .3d 8 68, 8 72 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet.) ( ci ti ng Busb y v . Bu sby, 457 S.W .2d 5 51, 5 54 ( Tex . 197 0) , quest ion ed on other

grounds by Je ffr ey v. Ken drick , 621 S.W .2d 2 07 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1981, no w ri t) ; In r e T ayl or , 992 S.W .2d 616, 619 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1999, no pet .) ; Soto v. Soto , 9 3 6 S

. W

. 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 0 (T e x. App.–E l Paso 1996, no w ri t) ; Bur gess v. Eas ley, 893 S.W .2d 8 7, 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1994, no w ri t) ); see Bi

shop v. Bi

shop , 74 S.W .3d 8 77, 8 79 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2002, no p et.). W e nee d only rema nd the entire com mu nity esta te fo r a just an d rig ht divisi on if the tr i a l c o u rtm i s c h a ra c t e r i z e d t h e p ro p e rt y a n d t h e m i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e p ro p erty had more tha n a de mi nimus eff ecton t he tr ial co urt’ s o ri g ina l div is ion of the p ro per ty

. See Jac obs v. Jac obs , 687 S.W .2d 7 31, 7 33 ( Tex . 198 5) ; Boyd , 131 S.W .3d a t 617 ; Zept ner
v. Zept ner , 111 S.W .3d 727, 740 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 2003, no pet. ); Rob les v. R obles , 965 S. W .2d 6 05, 6 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 8, pe t. deni ed)

. Here, t he tr ial court did not ref eren ce eith er the 1 533 or 1537 16th Streetprope rties mu ch less charact er iz e the proper ti es as c ommunit y

proper ty or se par ate p ro per

ty

. In he r moti on for16

new tr ial and on appe al, R osi ta ass umes that the t ri al cour t c oncl uded t hat t hese proper ti es
w er e Adan ’s se par ate proper ty

. How ev er , becau se the tr ial cour t did not referenc e ei ther 1533 or 1537 16th Street i n the final di v or ce decree, a nd bec ause w e hav e al re ady
c o n c lu d e d t h a tt h e s e p ro p e rt ie s we re p a rto f t h e c o m m u n it y e s t a t e , Ro s it a a n d A d a n o wn the p ro per

ti es as tenant s i n c ommon as a matt er of law

. See In re Marri

age of Notash , 118 S.W .3d a t 872 ; se e al

so Busb y , 457 S.W .2d a t 554 ; Bi shop , 74 S.W .3d at 879; Soto , 936 S.W .2d a t 340 ; Burge ss , 893 S.W .2d a t 90. On appeal , Ros it a’s arg uments cent er on t he chara cteriz ation of

the pro pertie s in qu e s tion, but she has no t directed us to evidence ind ic ati ng that the tri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n di v idi ng the mari tal proper ty

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( h)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le her first is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of Ros it a’s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

______ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 7t h day

of Ma y , 200 9.