### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 550 -CV

Br ian Le e P ope , A ppe lla nt

v. Nancy P ope , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2004 -50 3B , HO NORAB LE CHARLES A. STEP HENS II , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
B ri a n L e e Pop e a

pp e a ls t wo iss ue s p e rt a ini ngto t

he fi na l de c re e of

div or c e fr om h is marria g e to appe llee Na

ncy Pope. Br ian contends that the district court (i) err ed in fa iling to issue fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw a

nd that he wa s ha

rm e d by thi s f

a ilure , a nd (i i) imp ro pe rl y div es t ed him of his separ ate pr operty by awa rding an RV par

k entirely to Nancy . Be cause we hold that Bria

n was not har

med by the district c ourt’s failure to issue finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law a nd that the district court did not abuse its discret i on in its property division, we aff

irm the jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND

Br ian and Nanc y wer e marrie d in 1995 and had one child born to the marr iag e. Af ter Nanc y sued for divorce in Ma

y 2004, she and the child moved out of the ma rital reside nce a

nd lived at B ry an’s Country

RV Park, a business located in Guada lupe County that the par

ties had purc hased2

in J anuar y 2004 from Na

ncy ’s stepfathe r, E. K. Br

y an. This pr operty consisted of an 11.65- acr e tra ct of land on whic h the RV park was built and an additional adjoining 92- acr e tra ct. Nanc y had lived on this property

since she w as twelve y ear s old. She lived in a trailer home located on the par k and operated the par

k during the pende ncy

of t h e divorce. B rian re sided in the marital re sidence on Bobolink Street in Comal County that he had boug h t p ri o r t o the marr iag e and f rom which he op e rate d a

bu sin e ss, L a se r G ra

ph ic s. The pa rties ag ree d to temporary order s, but Nancy

there afte r obtained a

p ro t ec tive order a g a in s t B r ia

n d u e to v ar io u s h ar a s s in g a c ts d ir e c te d a t N an c y an d h e r te n an ts
. A f te r Na ncy filed for divorce , Br ian’s work history beca me sporadic , and he spe nt J anuar y 25 until April 11, 2006 in ja i l s er v i n g a sentenc e for assaulting a tena

nt at the RV park. B rian a lso violated and plea ded g uilt y to violation of the protective or der. The parties a ccuse d eac h other of va rious acts of mis c on du c t and

re po rt e d e a c h o the r t o v ari ou s a uth or iti e s. Na nc y pa id B ri an’ s mo rt g a g e pa y me nt f ro m O c tob e r 2 00 5 unti l Apr il 2 00 6 to a vo id fore closure of

the house e ven thoug h Br ian was or dere d t o m ak e t he house pa y ments under the temporar y order s. Whi le B rian wa s in jail, Nanc y did some work for L aser Gra phics and re ceive d pa y me nts wh ic h s he g a ve B ri an u po n h is r e le a se . B ri an a c kn ow le dg e d a t tr ia l th a t N anc y ha d p a id the mor tg a g e on the B ob oli nk

re sid e nc e be g inn ingin O c tob e r 2 00 5 a nd that he ha d b e e n h e ld i n contempt for f

ailure to pa

y child support. He c laimed to work in 2004 but made no inc ome. The trial of

the divorce proce eded on Ma y 15, 2006. The de cre e re cit es that t h e d i v o r c e w a s “

j u d i c i a l l y p r o n o u n c e d

an d r e n d e r e d i nc o u rta tN e w B r a

u n f e l s , C o m a l C o u n t y, Texas, on May

15, 2006 and further noted on the cour t’s docket she et on the same date, but sig ned3

on J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6
. ” I n a motion for new trial, Br ian complained that the division of the marital pr op e rt y wa s manif

e stl y un jus t and tha t th e va lue a ssi g ne d to the re a lty awa rd e d to Na

nc y , e vid e ntl y the RV park, was i ncorr ect. A j udg ment in favor of an appra iser-inter venor w as sig ned on Jul y

19 and filed on Aug ust 15, 2006. Although B rian timely reque sted fi n d i n g s of fa ct and c onclusions of law a nd fi le d a no tic e of

pa st d ue fi nd ing s, the dis tr ic t c ourt fai led t o f ile the m. T his appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N Fin dings of fact and conclusion s of law

Br ian first complains that the dist rict court err ed by failing to file finding s of fa ct and conclusions of lawin response to his timely reque st. Under the T exas Family Code, in a suit for dissoluti on of marr iag e in which the tr ial court ha s rendere d a j u dg ment dividing the e state of the parties a nd upon a re quest by

a par ty , the trial cour

t shall state in writi n g i t s fi n d i n gs of fa ct and conclusions of law . Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.711( a) ( West 2006). A re q u es t fo r finding s and conclusions under

section 6.711 must conform to the Te x as Rules of Civil P roce dure. Id. § 6.711(b). Th e tr ia l court ’s du ty to ma ke su c h fin din g s is mand a tor y , an d the fa ilure to re sp on d w he n r e qu e sts have be en prope rly made is pr esumed harmful unless the rec ord demonstrates that the complaining party has suffe red no injury
. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 2 96 ; T ener y v. T ene ry , 932 S.W .2d 29, 30 (T e x. 19 96 ); Cherne I

n dus., Inc. v . Magallanes , 7 63 S.W. 2d 76 8, 77 2 ( Te x. 19 89 ); Zeifman v. Mi c he ls , 2 1 2 S. W. 3 d

5 8 2 , 5 8 8 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n ie d ); Glass v. W illiamson , 13 7 S. W.3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7
- 1 8 ( T e x. A p p . — H o u s t o n [1 s t D i s t
. ] 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t
. )
. E r r o r i s h ar m f u l i f it preve nts an appe llant from prope rly prese nting a

case on appea l. Te ne ry , 932 S.W .2d at 30.We emphasize that oral dete rminations fr o m t h e benc h are not substit utes for w ritten 1 finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. S e e I n r e Doe , 78 S.W .3d 338, 340 n.2 (Tex. 2002); Narvaez v. M

aldonado , 127 S.W .3d 313, 316 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). We re ly on the se or a l pr on ounc e me nts so le ly fo r t he purp os e of

c on du c tin g our h arm

ana ly sis
. 4 I n Te ne ry , the supreme court found the trial court’ s failure to file finding s of fa ct and
c on c lus ion s o f l aw t o b e ha rm le ss a s it

re la te d to the div isi on

of pr op e rt

y be c a us e the re wa s ampl e evidenc e in the rec ord to support the judg ment. Id. ; see also Goggins v. Leo , 849 S.W .2d 373, 379 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (only one theo ry o f re co v ery

and the implied finding s nece ssary

for r ecove ry

wer e supported by

the evidenc e). Be cause Br ian’s re quest was timely , we must deter mine whether

he wa s harmed by the lack of

finding s and conc lusions. Nancy argue s t h at Br i an does not ha ve to g uess the re asons behind the district court’s order perta ining to its proper ty division, t hat he r aises the issue now r aised on appea l for the f

irst time and failed to ra ise it in the c ourt below, and that there is ample e vidence in t he re c or d to di sp os e of the i ssu e he no w r a ise s. Mo re ov e r, the dis tr ic t ju dg e ann ounc e d h is ruling s and stated his re asons at the he aring . We ag ree .

Although w e discoura g e t ri al j u dg es fr om failing to respond to timely reque sts for finding s, i n this case the r ecor d clea rly establishes the re asons under ly ing the district court’s decisions, and there is a mple evidenc e to suppor t the co u rt ’s d eter

mination. The re cord

1 aff irmatively

shows that Br ian suffe red no harm from the t rial court’s failure to issue findings of fac t and conc lusions of law.5

Property division

Alth o u g h th e c o u rt a

w ar d e d B r ia nth e B o b o li n k

h o me an d

th e L a s e r

G r a p h ics bu sin e ss, the RV pa

rk wa s awa rd e d to Nanc y . Br ian’ s so le c omp la int a bo ut t he div isi on

of pr op e rt y pe rt a ins to t

he RV pa rk wh ic h, he c la ims , wa s pu rc ha se d pa

rt ia lly wi th fu

nd s th a t w e re his se pa

rate proper ty and par tially with “community cre dit.” That this prope rty was e ither sepa

rate proper

ty or
a “ mixe d c ha

ra c te r a sse t” is r a ise d f

or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l. The fa mily code r equire s the trial cour t to divide the estate of the pa rties in a manne r t h a ti s j u s tan d

r i g h t , h a v i n g d

u e r e g ar d f o r t h e r i g h t s o f e a c h p art y an d t h e i r c h i l dr e n , i f

an y. Te x. F a m. C od e An

n. § 7 .0 01 (We st 2 00 6) ; see Egge mey er v. Egge mey er , 554 S
. W
. 2 d 137, 139 (Tex. 1977). We review

proper ty divi s i o n i s sues for a

buse of discr etion. Schlueter v . Schlueter , 97 5 S. W.2 d 5 84 , 5 89 (T e x. 19 98 ). Th e tr ia l c ourt ha s br oa d dis c re tio n in div idi ng the mari ta l e state at divorce
. Mu rff

v . M ur ff , 615 S.W .2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981) . We must presume that the trial cour t exercised it properly and may not alter the division unless the complaining party establishes a c lear abuse of the t rial court’s discretion. Id . A trial cour t abuses its discretion whe n it acts arbitra rily or
unrea sonably

and without refer en ce to any g uiding r

ules or princ iples. W

alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-40 (Te x . 1992). Be cause a trial c ourt has no discre tion in determining w hat the law is, which la

w g overns, or h o w to apply the law, we revie w this categ ory of discre tionary
ru lin g s de novo
. Id
. at 840. W hen we revie w a r uling that r esults from the trial c ourt’s having resolv ed u n d er l y ing f

acts, howe ver, w e must defe r to the trial cour t’s fac tual resolutions and any
cre dibilit y

deter minations that may

have a ffe cted those r esolutions, and we may not substitute our6

judgme nt for that of t he trial c ourt in those matters. Se e id
. a t 83 9- 40 (r e qu ir ing de fe re nc e to f a c tbased de terminations).

Al l pr op e rt

y on ha nd at the dis so lut ion

of marr ia g e is p re su me d to be c omm un ity proper ty . Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 3.003( a) (West 2006). This is a rebuttable pr esumption, requiring a spouse c laiming a ssets as sepa rate proper

ty to establish their separ ate c hara cter b y cl ear and convincing evidenc e. Id. § 3.003(a) -(b) . Property owned be fore marria g e, or a cquire d during marria g e by

g ift, devise or de scent, is sepa rate proper

ty
. Id. § 3.001 (West 2006). Where a n asset is purchase d during marria g e with monies trac eable to a s p o u s e’ s s ep arate estate , the asset may appropr iately

be cha rac teriz ed as separ ate pr operty
. Pace v. Pac e , 160 S.W .3d 706, 711 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pe t. denied).

Th e on ly e vid e nc e a t tr ia l sh ow e d th a t th e RV pa rk wa s pa rt of the c omm

un ity e state of the pa rties. The only

inventory

admitted into evidence showed the RV pa rk as pa rt of the community

estate; Br ian did not object to the exhibi t or challeng e its chara cter ization. The parties ag ree that the prope rty

was purc hased f

rom Nanc y ’s stepfather in 2004 for $420,000, and that they still owe $365,843. Na

ncy operated the RV par

k, and B rian testified that he did some work of an
un ide nti fi e d n a tur e on

the pr op e rt

y . B oth pa

rt ie s soug ht aw ard of the RV pa rk . B ri an o bje c te d to the awa rd of the RV park to N ancy not be cause it was separ ate or “mix ed cha

rac ter” proper

ty but on the g round that his daug hter “ oug ht to live in a rea l house” such a s the Bobolink re sidence
.

Mo re ov e r, B ri an d id n ot ra ise thi s c la im a t tr ia l or in h is m oti on

fo r n e w tri a l. Although he argued that the pa rties’ down pa

y ment of $50,000 on t he R V par k was made with funds from a home equity

loan made a g ainst the Bobolink re sidence , which wa s his separ ate property , there7

is no evidence in the rec ord to suppor t his contention. I n discovery and at tria l, Bria n produce d no
e vid e nc e re la tin g t o the “ va lue and c ha ra c te r o f t he se pa rate and c omm un ity e state .” Ev e n if

thi s issue is preser

ved, B rian did not establish by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the RV park w as other than c ommunity

proper ty . We conclude the trial judge did not abuse his discr etion in awar ding t h e RV p ar

k t o N an c y.
CO NC LU SION We hold that Br ian was not harme d by the district court’s f ailure to issue finding s of fa c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw a

nd that the dis tr ic t court did

no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

awa rd ingthe RV pa rk to N anc y . H a vin g ov e rr

ule d B ri an’ s is su e s, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

30, 2007