1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 1 8 2 - CV S UZ ANN E L E E Z W I CK AP P E L L ANT V . LEW I S A LAN ZW I C K A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 233RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on In fi v e p o i n ts , A p p e l l a n t S u z a n n e L e e Z w i c kc h a l l e n g e sth e tri a l c o u rt’s j udgm entaw ar di ng a n e qua l di vi si on oft he com m uni t y pr ope rt y pr oce eds b e tw e e n h e r a n d e x -h u s b a n d A p p e l l e e L e w i sA l a n Z w i c k . W e a ffir m .2 ... S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 38 . 1( g) ( “I n a ci vi l case, t he court w i l l acceptas

tru e th e fa c ts s ta te d u n l e s sa n o th e r p a rtyc o n tra d i c ts th e m .” ). 2 II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry Based on S uzanne’ s r eci t at i on of t he f act s, 2S uzanne and Lew i s m ar r i ed i n Fe br uary 1983 and ha d t hr eechi l dr en bef or e di vor ci ng i n M ay 200 2. Att he end oft he di vor cepr oce edi ngs , t he t r i alco urten t er ed an agr ee d decree of d i v o rc e c o n ta i n i n g th e fo l l o w i n g p ro v i s i o n sre g a rd i n g S u z a n n e a n d L e w i s ’s com m uni t y pr opert y hou se: [Le w i s] an d [ S u za n n e ] sh a l l co n ti n u e to j o i n tl ym a k e allp a y m e n ts ofpr i nci pal , i nt er es t , t axe s, an d [ i ns ur anc e] on t he pr ope rt y du r i ng t he pend ency of t he sa l e , and R espond ent , Su zanne Lee Zw i ck, sh al l ha v e t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o e n j o y t h e u s e a n d p o s s e s s i o n of th e p re m i s e su n ti l c l o s i n g . A l l m a i n te n a n c e a n d re p a i rsn e c e s s a ry t o k e e p t h e p r o p e rt yin it sp r e s e n tc o n d it io n , s h a ll b e p a id e q u a lly b y[L e w i s ] a n d [S u z a n n e ]. T h e n e ts a le s p r o c e e d s (w h ic h a r e d e f in e d a s t h e g r o s s s a le a n d f u ll p a y m e n t o f a n ym o rtg a g e i n d e b te d n e s so r li e n so n th e p ro p e rty ) a re h e re b ya w a rd e d e q u a l l yto [L e w i s ] a n d [S u z a n n e ]. T h e d i v o rc e d e c re e a l s o c o n ta i n e d th e fo l l o w i n g p ro v i s i o n re g a rd i n g c h ild su p p o rt : “The C ourtm akes no f i ndi ng as t o chi l d suppo rtatt hi s t i m e si nce b o th p a rt i e s w i l l h a v ee q u a l ti m e w i th th e c h i l d ren , a n d w i l l sh a re e q u a l l yw i th th e c a re a n d e x p e n s e so f th e c h i l d re n .” In M a y2 0 0 6 , S u z a n n e f ile d a p e t it io n t o m o d if yt h e p a r e n t -c h ild
r el at i onshi p and t o cl ar i f y t he 2 00 2 d i vor ce d ecr ee. Speci f i cal l y, Su zanne asked3 ... B yt h e t i m e t h i sc a s e w e n t to t ri a l , a l l t h re e o f S u z a n n e a n d L e w i s ’s

chi l dr en had r eached t he age ofm aj or i t y; ther ef or e, the t r i al co urtd i d not hear t h isis s u e a n d S u z a n n e d o e sn o ta p p e a l o n a n yg r o u n d sp e rt a in in g t o c h ild su p p o rt . 3 t he t r i al co urtt o r evi set he c hi l d- ca r e p r ovi si on i n t he dec r eeby es t abl i sh i ng gui del i ne’ s f or chi l d suppo rt f or t he one chi l d st i l l underage and l i vi ng athom e. 3 Suza nneal so as ke d t he t r i alco urtt o r ev i ew an d c l ar i f y t he pr ovi si onsi n t he dec r ee thatpe rt ai ned t o m ort gag e p aym ent s and m ai nt ena nceco st s f ort he com m uni t y pr opert y hou se. A l t er nat i vel y, she a sk ed t he t r i al courtt o r evi ew th e e x p e n se s an d p a y m e n ts m a d e b y h e r a n d L e w i s t o w a rds th e h o u s e , b o th i ndi vi du a l l y a nd j oi nt l y, a nd t he n t o a s s i gn t hea pp r op r i a t e c r e di t sa nd d e bi t s. W hen t he hou se sol d in J u n e 2 00 6, and an agr eem entcoul d not be r eached
r ega r di ng t he di vi si on oft he pr of i t s, Texa s N at i on s Ti t l e p l ac ed t he pr oce eds i nt o t he cou rtr egi st ry. D u ri n g tr i a l , S u za n n e p res e n ted ev i d e n c e tha t sh e h a d p a i d the m aj o ri ty oft he m ort gag e p aym ent s and m ai nt ena ncecost s bet w ee n M ay 200 2 and June 2 0 0 6 . L e w is p r e s e n t e d e v id e n c e t h a th e h a d re im b u r s e d S u z a n n e f o rh is p o rti o n o f th e m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts . A t th e c l o s e o f th e e v i d e n c e , th e tri a l c o u rt r end er ed j udgm entast o t he di st r i but i on oft he proc ee dsf r om t he sa l e o ft he hou se and l at er si gned a cor r ect ed j udg m entt hat : ( 1) aw ar ded G eor ge Petr ovi ch (a n a p p o i n te d m a s te r i n c h a n c e ry ) $ 5 ,2 5 0 fo r re a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a ry4 ... T h e tr i a l co u rtfou n d th a t T e x a s N a ti o n s T i tl e h a d alr e a d yrec e i v e d i ts

r es pec t i ve att or ney ’ s f ee s and co st s f ort he l i t i gat i on. 4 a t t or ney’ s f ees; ( 2) or der ed t hatTexas N at i ons T i t l e r ecei ve no m oni es; 4 ( 3 ) or der ed t hatt he r em ai ni ng ba l anc e be di vi ded equ al l y be t w ee n Suz ann e a nd Le w i s— su bj ec tt o a n or dert hat Le w i s pay Suza nne nec es sa ry exp ens es f ort he hou se i n th e am oun tof$3 , 77 2; and ( 4) or der ed t hatt he accr ued i nt er est ear ned f r om t he f und s r egi st er ed w i t h t he t r i al courtbe di vi ded equ al l y bet w een Suza nnean d L ew i s. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I I I . St andar d ofRev i ew A t r i alj udgei s cha r ged w i t h di vi di ng t he com m uni t y es t at e i n a “j us tan d
r i ght ” m ann er , co ns i der i ng t he r i ght s ofbot h pa rt i es . Tex . Fa m . Code Ann. § 7 .0 0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); Morochv. Col l i ns , 174 S . W . 3 d 849, 855 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2005 , pe t . den i ed) . The t r i alco urtha s br oad di sc r et i on i n m ak i ng i t s j us tan d r i ghtdi vi si on, a nd a bs en ta cl ea rab us e o fdi sc r et i on, w e w i l l not d i s tu rb th a t d i v i s i o n . Murf f v. Murf

f, 6 1 5 S .W .2 d 6 9 6 , 6 9 8

– 9 9 (T e x . 1 9 8 1 ); Boyd v. Boyd, 1 3 1 S .W .3 d 6 0 5 , 6 1 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.). To det erm i ne w het hera t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on, w e m us tde ci de
w het hert he t r i alco urtac t ed w i t houtr ef er enc e t o a ny gu i di ng r ul esor pr i nci pl es ; i n ot herw or ds , w e m us tde ci de w het hert he ac tw asar bi t r ary or u n re a s o n a b l e . Ci

rev. Cum m i

ngs, 1 3 4S .W .3 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 8

– 3 9 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ).5 I V . Fi ndi ngs ofFactand C oncl usi ons ofLaw I n S u za n n e ’s fi rst po i n t, sh e arg u e s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rterred b yfai l i n g to fi l e fi n d i n g so f fa c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n so f l a w . O n F e b ru a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , h o w e v e r, upo n di scover i ng t hat t he t r i al courthad not i ssued t he r equi si t e w r i t t en f i ndi ngs and con cl us i ons , t hi s cou rtor der ed t he app ea l ab at ed and di r ec t ed t he t r i al co urt“ t o c om pl et e w r i t t en f i ndi ngs of f ac t and con cl us i onsofl aw . ” The t r ia l c o u rth a sd o n e s o ; t h e r e f o r e , S u z a n n e ’s c o m p la in tt h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtd id
n o t m a k e fi n d i n g so f fa c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w i sm o o t. S ee Moore v. Fi r st Fi n. Res ol

uti on Enter

s. , I nc . , 277 S. W . 3d 510, 514 ( Te x. App . — Dal l a s2009 , n o p e t.). V . M ast eri n C hancery Fees I n h e r se c o n d p o i n t, S u za n n e co m p l a i n s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rt ab u se d i ts di scr et i on byasses si ng a port i on of t he pr opo sed m ast eri n chancer y f e es aga i ns the rbe ca us e s he f i l ed a t i m el y obj ec t i on. Th e appoi nt m entofa m ast erl i es w i t hi n t he sound di scr et i on of t he t r i al c o u rt a n d s h o u l d n o t b e d i s tu rb e d u n l e s s a c l e a r a b u s e o f th a t d i s c re t io n is fo u n d . Si

mpson v. Canales , 8 0 6 S . W . 2 d 8 0 2 , 8 1 1 ( T e x . 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e S u p r e me C ourtofTexa s hashe l d t hat“ Rul e 171 i s t he exc l us i ve aut hor i t y f or a p p o i n tm e n t o f m a s t e rsi n o u r s ta te c o u rts ” a n d “ e v e ryre fe rra l to a m a s te r, u n l e ss au th o ri ze d b ysta tu te o r co n se n ted to b ythe p a rt i e s, m u st c o m p l yw i th5 ... B e c a u s e th e c o n fe re n c e to o kp l a c e i n c h a m b e rs , n o re p o rte r’sre c o rd

exi sts. H ow eve r , a m aj or i t y ofbot h pa rt y’ s r ec i t at i onsoft he f ac t s r ega r di ng th e c o n fe re n c e d o n o t c o n tra d i c t; th e re fo re , w e t a k e t h o s e a st ru e . S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 38. 1( g) . Furt her m or e, t he t r i alco urtm adef i ndi ngsoff ac tt hatw ent u n c h a l l e n g e d a sto w h a t o c c u rre d d u ri n g th e c o n fe re n c e . See McGal l i ard v. Kuhl m ann , 722 S. W . 2d 694, 696 ( Te x. 1986 ) ( ho l di ng t ha tw he r e t het r i al c o u rt’sfi n d i n g so f fa c t a re u n c h a lle n g e d b yc o m p l a i n t o n a p p e a l , th e ya re b i n d in g o n t h e a p p e l l a te c o u rt a n d a re e n ti tl e d to th e s a m e w e i g h t a sa j u ry ver di ct , unl es s t he con t r ary i s es t abl i sh ed asa m att er o fl aw ort her e i s no e v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt th e fi n d i n g ). 6 R ul e 17 1. ” Id . a t 8 1 0 & n .1 2 (g i v i n g n o n -e x h a u s ti v e l i s ti n g o f m a tte rs a u th o ri z e d b ys ta tu te ). O n M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e p a rt ie sa p p e a r e d a n d a n n o u n c e d re a d yf o rt r ia l; how ever , t he t r i al courtdi d not hear t est i m ony but i nst ead pr ono unced t hatan a u d i to r w o u l d n e e d to b e a p p o i n te d . O n J u l y2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , b o th S u z a n n e ’s c o u n se l an d Le w i s’s c o u n se l ap p e a re d b e fo re th e tr i a l co u rt , i n ch a m b e rs, t o app oi ntan au di t or . The t r i al c ou rt , how eve r , di d notap poi ntan au di t orbut i ns t ea d r ec om m end ed t hata m as t eri n c han ce ry beap poi nt ed. 5 Bot h a t t or ney s agr ee d, an d t he t r i alco urtdi r ec t ed t hem t o con t ac t Pet r ovi ch, a l oca l att or ney , a nd r e qu e s tt ha th e b e a pp oi nt e d a sm a s t e ri n c ha nc e ry. O n Augu s t1, 2007 , L e w i s f a x e d a p rop o se d o rde r fo r th e a p p o i n tm e n t o f t h e m a ste r i n ch a n c e ry to P e tr o v i c h an d S u za n n e . O n O c to b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , S u z a n n e fi l e d an o bj e c ti o n to t he appo i ntm e n t. The t r i al courtgr ant ed S uzanne’ s obj ect i on bu tdi r ect ed P e tr o v i c h to su b m i t a sta tem e n t fo r th e ti m e h e h a d sp e n t o n th e c a s e u p to7

S u z a n n e ’so bj e c ti o n . P e tro v i c h s u b m i tte d a b i l l f o r $ 5 ,2 5 0 , a n d t h e tri a l c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e a m o u n t w a sa re a s o n a b l e a n d c u s to m a ryfe e . T h e tri a l c o u rt o rde red tha t P e tr o v i c h ’s fee s b e p a i d o u t of S u za n n e an d L e w is ’s co m m u n i ty pr opert y pr oceeds. Suza nne as se rt s t hat sh e h ad no k now l edg e o ft he ext ens i ve w or k b ei ng don e by Pet r ovi ch dur i ng t he t w o and a hal f m onths bef or e she fi l e d her obj ect i on and t hatas s oon as she becam e aw ar e ofPet r ovi ch’ s f ees, she f i l ed h e ro bje c t io n . S u z a n n e c la im st h a tb e c a u s e s h e d id n o tp a rt i c i p a t e in pr oce edi ngsbef or e Pet r ovi ch and bec aus e Pet r ovi ch had yett o do anyw or k o n t he m er i t s of t he ca se , sh e t i m el y f i l ed her obj ec t i on and t her ef or e s houl d not have t o pay a port i on of Pet r ovi ch’ s f ees. I n s upportofhe rcl ai m , S uz ann e di r ec t s ourat t ent i on t o O wens - Cor ni ng F ib er gla ssCo r

p . v. Ca ld well, i n w hi ch t he cou rts t at ed t hat“a p art y obj ec t i ng to a m a s te r’sa p p o i n tm e n t m u s t m a k e a n o bj e c ti o n n o tw it h in s o m e a rb i tra ry ti m e p e ri o d , b u t b e fo re i t h a sta k e n p a rt i n p ro c e e d i n g s b e fo re th e m a s te r . . . .”8 3 0 S .W .2 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 5 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 1 , n o p e t.). S uzanne, how ever , has fai l e d to ci t e t he ent i r e concl usi on of t he Ca ld well opi ni on. T he cou rti n Ca ld well c o n c l u d e d th a t “ a p a rtyo bj e c ti n g to a m a s te r’s app oi nt m entm us tm ak e a n obj ec t i on no t w i t hi n so m e ar bi t r ary t i m e p er i od, but b e fo re i t h a sta k e n p a rt i n p ro c e e d i n g sb e fo re th e m a s te r[;] or be f ore the6 ... Th e tri a l co urtm ade t he f ol l ow i ng f i ndi ngs t o w hi ch no chal l enges

w er e m ade : ( 1) t he att or ney ’ s f orbot h pa rt i esco ns ent ed t o t he appoi nt m ent o f a m a ste r i n ch a n c e ry, ( 2 ) S u za n n e ’s atto rne yh a d the ap p a ren t au th o ri ty to m a k e a g re e m e n ts o n h e r b e h a lf , (3 ) th etri a l c o u rt re l i e d o n h e r a tto rn e y ’s appar entau th or i t y, and ( 4) Pet r ovi ch r easonabl y bel i eved t hathe w as aut hor i z ed by t he t r i alco urtan d t he part i est o pe r f or m t he se rvi ce s he p e rfo rm e d . S e eMc Ga l l i a rd, 722 S. W . 2d a t696.

8 p a rti es, th em a s ter, an d th ec o urt h a vea c te d i nrel i a n c eo nth em a s ter’s appo i ntm ent . ” Id . a t 6 2 5 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). H e re , th e tri a l c o u rt a c t e d in
r el i anc e o n t he part i es ’ cons entt o appoi nta m as t eri n c han ce ry w hen or der i ng t hatPet r ovi ch be appo i nt ed, and Petr ovi ch act ed i n rel i ance on t hat appo i n tm e n t. 6 Ther ef or e, based on t hese f act s, w e cannot say t hatt he t r i al c o u rta b u s e d it sd is c r e t io n b yo r d e r i n g S u z a n n e t o p a yh a lfo ft h e m a s t e rin c h a n c e ry’s fe e s. A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e S u za n n e ’s se c o n d p o i n t. V I . Fact ualSu ff i ci ency In S u z a n n e ’s t h ir d a n d f o u rt h p o in t s , s h e a r g u e st h a tt h e e v id e n c e is fac tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtt h e tr i a l co u rt ’s fi n d i n g s th a t t h e co m m u n i ty pr opert y pr oceeds and t he i nt er estearned o n t hose pr oceeds shoul d be di vi ded equal l y bet w een herand Lew i s. I n f am i l y l aw ca se s, t he t r adi t i ona l s uf f i ci enc y s t and ar d ofr evi ew ove r l aps w i t h t he abuse of di scr et i on s t andar d ofr evi ew ; t her ef or e, f act ual i nsuf f i ci ency i s notan i nde pen den tgr ound ofer r orbuta r el ev an tf ac t ori n ouras se ss m ent9

o f w h e th e r th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d it s d is c re ti o n . Bo yd , 131 S . W . 3d a t611. A cc or di ng l y, to det er m i ne w het hert her e h asbe en an abu seofdi sc r et i on b e c a u s e th e e v i d e n c e i sfa c tu a llyin s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e tri a l c o u rt’s dec i si on, w e e nga ge i n a t w o- pr onge d i nqui ry: ( 1) di d t he t r i alco urtha ve suf f i ci entevi dence up on w hi ch t o exer ci se i t s di scr et i on, and ( 2) di d t he t r i al courter ri n i t s appl i cat i on of t hatdi scr et i on? Id .; see al so Moroch , 174 S. W . 3d at857. The app l i ca bl e su f f i ci enc y r evi ew co m esi nt o pl ay w i t h r ega r d t o t he fi rs t q u e s ti o n . Boyd, 131 S. W . 3d a t611. W h e n rev i e w i n g an a ss e rt i o n th a t t h e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su pporta f i ndi ng, w e s etas i de t he f i nd i ng onl y i f , aft erco ns i der i ng a nd
w e i g h i n g a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e i n th e re c o rd p e rti n e n t to th a t fi n d i n g , w e d e te rm i n e t h a t th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g t h e f i n d i n g iss o w e a k , o r s o c o n tra ry t o t he over w hel m i ng w ei ght ofal l t he evi dence, t hatt he answ ershoul d be set a s i d e a n d a n e w tri a l o rd e re d . Pool v. Ford Motor

Co. , 715 S. W . 2d 629, 635 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ); Gar za v. A lvi

ar, 3 9 5 S .W .2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 3 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ); I nre K i ng ’s E sta te , 1 5 0 T e x . 6 6 2 , 2 4 4S .W .2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 1 (1 9 5 1 ). A . Com m unity Prope rty Proce eds I n Suz a nn e ’ s t hi r d po i nt , s he a s s e rt s t ha t f r om M a y 2002 t o Ju ne2006 , s h e c o n tri b u te d m o re th a n L e w i s to w a rd s th e m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts a n d th e re fo re ise n t it le d t o a la r g e rp o rt io n o ft h e p r o c e e d s . D u r in g t r ia l, S u z a n n e t e s t if ie d in7 ... Le w i s t es t i f i ed t hatt he t ot alw as$90, 072 . 2 9 ; how eve r , i n a

s pr e a ds he e to f f e r e d a sa n e xh i bi t , h e l i s t st hea m ou nto f$90, 313. 17. 10 p e rt in e n tp a rtt o t h e f o llo w in g : f r o m M a y2 0 0 2 t o J u ly2 0 0 3 , s h e a lo n e p a id t he m ortga g e p a ym ent s and di d so f r om hersepar at e account; f r om A ugu st 200 3 t o Apr i l 2005 , t he m ort gag e p aym ent s w er e p ai d f r om a j oi ntch ec ki ng a c c ountthatb e l on ge d t o he ra nd L e w i s ; a nd , f r om M a y 2005 t o Ju ne2006 , s h e p a i d th e m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts o u t o f h e r s e p a ra te a c c o u n t. S u z a n n e ’s evi den cei ncl ude d c opi esoft he che ck s sh e h ad w r i t t en t o t he m ort gag e com pan y. O n t h e o t h e rh a n d , L e w ist e s t if ie d t h a to v e rt h e p e r io d o ft im e in qu e s t i on , h e a nd Su z a nn e ow e d a t ot a l o f$90, 313. 17 7i n m ort gage pay m ent s. O f t hat , t hey pai d $41 , 316 . 46 ou t of t hei r j oi nt che ck i ng ac cou nt . S uza nne p a id t h e re m a in in g $ 4 8 ,9 9 6 . 7 0 o u to fh e rs e p a r a t e a c c o u n t . T h a tle ftL e w is ow i ng S uzanne approxi m at el y $2 4, 49 8. 00 . L e w i s t est i f i ed t hathe had
r e im b u r s e d S u z a n n e $ 2 0 ,6 7 5 .0 0 , l e a v in g a b a la n c e o fa p p r o x im a t e ly $3, 823 . 00. As ev i den ceof t he r ei m bur se m ent , Le w i s i nt r oduc ed cop i esoft he checks he had w r i t t en t o S uzanne. Suza nneco nt end s t hatt he evi de nce s upport s a f i ndi ng t hatt he $20 , 675 . 00 Lew i s pai d t o her w as f or chi l d su pport and noti n r ei m bur se m ent f or bac k m ort gag e pay m ent s. I n su pport of t hi s ar gum ent , Suza nnedi r ec t s our11

at t ent i on t o Lew i s’ s bankr uptcy f i l i ngs— f i l ed i n 2 00 2— i n w hi ch Lew i s st at ed th a t he d i d n o t h a v e a m o rt g a g e o b l i g a ti o n b u t did p a ym o n th l ych i l d su p p o rt . H ow eve r , a m aj or i t y oft he t w ent y- t hr eechec ksw r i t t en by Lew i s t o Suz ann e w e r e e it h e rb la n k in t h e m e m o s e c t io n o rc o n t a in e d t h e w o r d “ m o rt g a g e ”

— o n ly fi v e o u t o f th e tw e n ty -th re e c o n ta i n e d th e w o rd “ s u p p o rt.” B a s e d o n th i s , w e c a n n o t s a yt h a t th e e v i d e n c e iss o w e a k , o r s o c o n tra ry t o t he over w hel m i ng w ei ght ofal l the evi dence, thati tw i l l notsupportt he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ng t hat t he checks w er e w r i t t en i n r ei m bur sem ent for b a ck
m o rtg a g e p a y m e n ts . S ee I n re Bar ber, 9 82 S. W . 2d 364 , 366 ( Tex. 1998 ) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( hol di ng t hatan abuse of di scr et i on does not occurw her e t he t r i al cou rtba se s i t s dec i si ons on c onf l i ct i ng e vi den ce ) . Ther ef or e, w e h ol d t hatt he tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts d i sc reti o n b yeq u a l l yd i v i d i n g the co m m u n i ty p r o p e rt yp r o c e e d sb e t w e e n S u z a n n ea n d L e w i s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e o v e r r u le S u za n n e ’s thir d p o i n t. B. Ear ned I nt er est I n Suz ann e’ s f ourt h poi nt , s he ar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urts houl d ha ve di vi ded t he i nt er es tear ned on t he pr oce edsi n t he sa m e m ann erasi tdi vi ded t he pr i nci pal am oun t
— f i f t y- si x per cent t o S uzanne and fort y- f ourper centt o Lew i s. S peci f i cal l y, Su zann e a rgues t hatbecause t he t r i al courtaw ar ded her $ 3 8 ,5 2 1 .7 8 o ft h e t o t a l p r in c ip a l a m o u n to f$ 6 9 ,4 9 9 .5 6 , s h e re c e iv e d f if t y -s ix12

per ce ntoft he pr i nci palan d t her ef or e i s ent i t l ed t o t he sam e di vi si on on t he i nt er es tea r ned on t hatpr i nci pal . H ow eve r , Suz ann e d oesnotci t e t o a ny a u th o ri tyto s u p p o rt h e r a rg u m e n t. S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 3 8 . 1( i ) ( r equ i r i ng app el l ant ’ s br i eft o i ncl ude“ app r opr i at e c i t at i onst o a ut hor i t i esan d t o t he
r ecor d”) . A nd w e do not bel i eve t he f act s supportsuch an i nf er ence, norcan w e fi n d an y th i n g i n the rec o rd to su p p o rtS u za n n e ’s arg u m e n t. O n t he con t r ary, t he t r i alco urt ’ s cor r ect ed j udgm entco nt ai nst he f ol l ow i ng r el evantl angu age: A f t ert he f i r st d i st r i but i on, s ubj ec tt o t he bel ow pr ovi si on f or necessary expenses, t he C ourt or der s t hatt he r em ai ni ng pr i nci pal b a l a n c e o f $ 6 9 ,4 9 9 .5 6 , sh a l l b ed ivi de d e qua l ly(5 0 % ) bet w ee n t he Pet i t i one r , SU ZA N N E ZW I C K, an d Res ponde nt , LE W I S ZW I C K. T he C o u rt f i n d sa n d o rd e rst h a t L E W IS Z W IC K ’S s h a re o f th e n e c e s s a ry expenses f ort he h om e i s $3 , 77 2. 00 . Ther ef or e, t he Peti t i oner sh al l r ec ei ve $38 , 521 . 78 and t he Res ponde nts hal l r ec ei ve $30 , 9 7 7 . 7 8. Subj ec tt o § 117. 005 oft he Texa s G ove r nm ent C ode , t he C ourt aw ar ds t hat t he ac cr ued i nt er es tea r ned f r om t he fu n d s re g i ste red w i th t h e C o u rt to bedivi ded equal ly to the Petiti o n er an d Resp o n den t

;Pe titi o n er sh a l l re c eive5 0% an d Resp o n den t sh a l

l re c eive 5 0 % o f th e a c cru e di n teres t. [E m p h a s is a d d e d .] W e read t he pl ai n l angu age ofthe j udg m entt o say t hatt he t r i al courtdi vi ded t he pr i nci palam ounteq ual l y be t w ee n Suz ann e a nd L ew i s. Le w i s’ s f i ft y pe r ce nt
w a s th e n d e c re a s e d b ythe am o u n t t h a t he o w e d S u za n n e an d , a s a res u l t, Suza nner ec ei ved f i f t y pe r ce ntoft he pr i nci pal am ount pl us Le w i s’ s pay m entf or e x p e n s e s , n o tf if t y -s ixp e r c e n to ft h e p r in c ip a l.13

Ther ef or e, be ca us e Suz ann e b as ed herar gum enton t he gr ound t hatt he t r ia l c o u rts h o u ld h a v e d iv id e d t h e a c c r u e d in t e r e s tin t h e s a m e m a n n e rt h a tit di vi ded t he pr i nci pal am oun t , and because w e have conclud e d thatt he t r i al courtdi vi ded t he pr i nci pal am oun tequal l y bet w een S uzanne and Lew i s, l ess w hatLew i so w e d t o h e ro u to ft h e p r i n c i p a l , w e h o l d t h e t r i a l c o u rtd i d n ot a b u se i ts d i sc reti o n b y d i v i d i n g th e a c c rue d i n tere st a s s tate d i n the j u d g m e n t. S eeT e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 7 .0 0 1 . A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e S u za n n e ’s fou rt h p o i n t. V I I . Fai rand I m part i alTr i al In S u z a n n e ’s f if t h p o in t , s h e c o n t e n d st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtd e n ie d h e ra f a ir and i m part i alt r i alasgua r an t ee d by t he Texa s con st i t ut i on. Spec i f i ca l l y, S u za n n e c o m p l a i n s t h a t th e tr i a l c o u rt a b u se d i ts d i sc reti o n b yreq u i ri n g h e r t o c o m p l e te h e r en ti re c a se i n tw e n ty-fi v e m i n u tes . H o w e v e r, fa i l u re to o bj e c t t o ti m e l i m i ts i m p o s e d b ya tri a l c o u rt w a i v e sa n ye rro r. Schwartz v. Forest Pharm . , I

nc. , 127 S. W . 3d 118, 126–2 7 ( Te x. App.

— Hous t on [ 1s tDi s t . ] 2003 , pet . de ni ed) . Af t era t hor ough r evi ew oft he r ec or d, w e c onc l udet hatSuz ann e d id n o to bje c tt o t h e t im e lim it a t io n a n d t h e r e f o r e h a sf a ile d t o p r e s e rv e t h is c o m p l a i n t fo r re v i e w . S e eid . A c c o rding l y , w e o v e rr u l e S u za n n e ’s fi fth p o i n t.14 V I I I . Concl us i on H avi n g d i sm i ssed Suzanne’ s f i r stpoi ntas m oot, and havi ng ov er r ul ed S u za n n e ’s rem a i n i n g p o i n ts, w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

B O BM C C O Y J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; W A LKER and M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 4, 2009