1 ... See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 6 - 3 7 6 - CV
R AY M OND GL E NN HAN COC K AP P E L L ANT V . V I C KI B. H A N C O C K A PPELL EE

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

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l ee V i cki B. H ancock file d f ordi vor ce i n A ugu st20 04 , and af t er
m or e t han t w o year s of l i t i gat i on, t he t r i al courtgr ant ed t he di vor ce and si gned t he di vor ce dec r ee . A ppe l l ant Raym ond G l enn H anc ock f i l ed a t i m el y not i ceof app ea l . I n e i ghti ss ues , G l enn co m pl ai nsoft he t r i al co urt ’ s pr ope rt y di vi si on. Beca us e w e h ol d t hatt he t r i al cou rt di d not abu se i t s di sc r et i on i n di vi di ng t he2 ... T h e t r ia l c o u rtre f e r r e d t o t h e p a rt ie s b yt h e irf u ll n a m e s o rin it ia ls in

t he f i ndi ngsoff ac tan d c onc l us i onsofl aw . I n quo t ed exc er pt s f r om t he f i ndi ngsoff ac tan d c onc l us i onsofl aw , w e hav e m odi f i ed t hes e r ef er enc esby usi ng on l y t he gi ven nam es oft he part i es. 2 c o m m u n i ty e sta te, w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. I . Fi ndi ngs ofFactand C oncl usi ons ofLaw A f t ert w o da ysoft r i al , t he t r i al co urtf ound:

. . . . 6. C r edi bl e e vi den cew asad m i tte d to s upportt he f ol l ow i ng f ac t or s f orco ns i der at i o n by t he C ourti n or der i ng a di vi si on oft he part i es’ est at e: a . G L E N N ’s f aul ti n t he br eakup of t he m ar r i age; 2 b . f r a u d o n t h e c o mm u n i t yc o mm i tt e d b yGL E NN;
c. ben ef i t s V I C KI m ay hav e d er i ve d f r om t he conti nuati on of t he m ar r i age; d . d i s p a r i t yo fe a r n i n g p o w e ro fGL E NN a n d VI CKI and t hei rabi l i t y t o suppo rtt hem sel ves; e. ear ni ng pow er , b u s in e s s o p port uni t i es, ca pac i t i es , an d a bi l i t i esofbot h s pous es ; an d f . wa s t i n g o fc o mm u n i t ya s s e t s b yGL E NN. 7. The c om m uni t y pr ope rt y oft he part i esex i st i ng a nd r em ai ni ng t o be d i v i d e d a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l wa s v a l u e d as f ol l ow s: a. Pr opert y w i t h an ascert ai nabl e cash val ue:3 ... A f ootnot e her e pr ovi ded, “C ash G LEN N advi sed Judg e H addo ck

( A s s o c i a te J u d g e o f 2 3 3 rd J u d i c i a l D i s tri c t C o u rt) G L E N N h a d ‘a t th e ra n c h ’; Judg e H add o c k o rder ed t he cash be depo si t ed i n H I A account; i nst ead [ he] w i th d re w $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 o u t o f F i rs t S ta te B a n ka c c o u n t a n d d e p o s i te d i n H IA [.]” 3 . . . Han c oc kI ns . Age nc y, I nc . $170, 520. 00

. . .

. . . . 8. Th e t ot al val ue oft he com m uni t y est at e exi st i ng on t he day oft r i a l w a s $1, 727, 842. 89.

. . . . 14. G LENN co m m i t t ed f r aud on t he com m uni t y a nd w as t e o f com mu n i t ya s s e t s d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c yo ft h e d i v or ce p roc e e d i n g b yi m p rop e rl yd i sp o sing o f ce r t a in co m m u n i ty pr ope rt y. 15 . Except f ort he f r aud on t he com m uni t y and w ast e com m i t t ed by GLEN N , t he com m uni t y pr ope rt y oft he part i esr em ai ni ng t o be di vi ded w oul d have i ncl uded t he f ol l ow i n g a ddi t i onal cash asset s: H anc ockI ns ur anc e Agenc y, I nc. f unds e xp e nd e d s ol e l y t o be ne f i tGLE NN $171, 971. 71 Ret i r em entf undsw i t hdr aw n a nd e xpe nde d s ol e l y t o be ne f i tGLE NN $121, 334. 70 C ash f r om Ran ch [ $36, 000. 00 3 ] To t a l $329, 306. 41

. . . .4

17. Ther ef or e, i n m ak i ng a j us t and r i ght equ i t abl e d i vi si on oft he com m uni t y e st at e, t he C ourt con si der ed t he t ot al va l ue oft he c om m un i t y e s t a t e t o be$2, 105, 549. 30 ( $1, 727, 842. 89 + $3 29 , 30 6. 41 + $4 8, 40 0. 00 [ cash a d v ances t he part i es re c e i v e d fro m th e re c e i v e r b e fo re tri a l ]).

. . . . 1 9 . V I C K I w a s a w a rde d [ $ 1 ,2 2 7 ,1 7 8 .0 6 i n ] e x i sti n g co m m u n i ty p ro p e rty [.] 2 0 . V I C K I rec e i v e d $ 2 6 ,6 0 0 .0 0 i n c a sh ad v a n c e s o f co m m u n i ty p ro p e rty. . . . 2 1 . V I C K I thu s re c e i v e d $ 1 ,2 5 3 ,7 7 8 .0 6 o f th e to tal co m m u n i ty e s t a t e c on s i de r e d byt heCou rt( $1, 227, 178. 06 + $ 2 6 ,6 0 0 .0 0 ). 2 2 . T h e p e rce n tag e o f e x i sti n g co m m u n i ty p rop e rt yaw a rde d to V I C KI w a s 71% ( $1, 227 , 178 . 06/ $1, 727 , 842 . 89) [ . ] The p e rce n tag e o f t h e tota l v a l u e o f t h e co m m u n i ty e s t a te c on s i de re d byt heCou rta s a w a r de d t o VI CKI w a s 59. 5% ($ 1 ,2 5 3 ,7 7 8 .0 6 /$ 2 ,1 0 5 ,5 4 9 .3 0 ).

. . . . 2 4 . G L E N N w a s a w a rde d [$ 5 0 0 ,6 6 4 .8 3 i n ] e x i sti n g co m m u n i ty p ro p e rty [.] 2 5 . G L E N N rec e i v e d $ 2 2 ,0 0 0 .0 0 i n c a sh a d v a n c e s o f co m m u n i ty p ro p e rty . . . . 26. D ue t o t he f r aud on t he com m uni t y and w as t e c om m i t t ed by G LEN N , t he C o u rtconsi der ed t hatG LEN N al so r ecei ved [$ 3 2 9 ,3 0 6 .4 1 i n ] a d v a n c e s o f c o m m u n i typ ro p e rty [.] 2 7 . G L E N N t h u s rec e i v e d $ 8 5 1 ,9 7 1 .2 4o f t h e tota l co m m u n i ty e s t a t e c on s i de r e d by t heCou rt( $500, 664. 83 + $22, 000. 00 + $ 3 2 9 ,3 0 6 .4 1 ).5

2 8 . T h e p e rce n tag e o f e x i sti n g c o m m u n i ty p rop e rt yaw a rde d to G LENN w as29% ( $50 0, 664 . 83/ 1, 727 ,842. 89) [ . ] The p e rce n tag e o f t h e tota l v a lu e o f t h e co m m u n i ty e sta te c on s i de r e d byt heCou rta s a w a r de d t o G L ENN w a s 40. 5% ($ 8 5 1 ,9 7 1 .2 4 /2 ,1 0 5 ,5 4 9 .3 0 ). The t r i al co urt ’ s con cl us i onsofl aw i ncl ude d t he f ol l ow i ng:

. . . . 2. The pa rt i ess houl d bedi vor ce d on t he gr ou n d th a t t he m ar r i ageha d be com e i ns upport a b l e b ec aus e o fdi sc or d or confl i ctofper sonal i t i es.

. . . . 4. I n de t er m i ni ng t he t ot al va l ue oft he com m uni t y e st at e t o be c o n s id e r e d b y t h e C o u rt in m a k in g a ju s ta n d rig h te q u it a b le di vi si on oft he com m uni t y e st at e, t he C ourts houl d r ec oup t he am ountofco m m uni t y pr ope rt y l o s t to w as t e a nd/or c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d c o mm i t t e d b yGL E NN. 5. The v al ue oft he com m uni t y pr ope rty l os tt o w as t e a nd/or con st r uct i ve f r aud co m m i t t ed by G LENN s houl d be c o n side red as p a rto f t h e tota l v a l u e o f pro p e rt yaw a rde d to GL E NN. I I . Pr el i m i nary M att er : Gl enn ’ s N ot ebo ok I ni t i al l y, w e n ot e t hati n pr es ent i ng hi s i ss ues , G l enn r el i eson i nf or m at i on fo u n d i n R e s p o n d e n t’s E x h i b i t O n e , “G l e n n H a n c o c k ’sS u b m i s s i o n N o te b o o k .” V i c k i c o n te n d s th a t th e n o te b o o k w a s a d m i tte d a s a s u m m a ry o f th e w i tn e s s ’s t est i m ony an d t hati t s content s canno t be consi der ed as adm i ssi bl e evi dence. R ul e 10 5( a) oft he T exas Ru l es ofEvi dence pr ovi des t hat“[ w ] hen evi dence4 ... T EX . R. E VID . 1 0 5 (a ).
5 ... S e e D a visv. Ga le , 160 Tex. 309, 330 S . W . 2d 610, 612– 13 ( Tex. 19 60 ) ( hol di ng t hatt r ust ee’ s deed t hatpl ai nt i f f s i nt r odu ced f orl i m i t ed pur pose o f d e m o n s tra ti n g a c l o u d o n th e i r ti tl e c o u l d n o t b e u s e d a s p ro o f o f d e fe n d a n t’s ti tl e ); Tex . Com m erce Ban k Reagan v. Lebco Construc tors, I nc. , 865 S. W . 2d 68 , 76 ( Tex . A pp. — C or pus C hr i st i 1 9 9 3, w r i tdeni ed) ( hol di ng evi dence adm i t t ed f orpart i cul arpur pose m ay not be w ei ghed i n det er m i ni ng suf f i ci ency o f e v i d e n c e to s h o w m a tte r o u ts i d e l i m i ta ti o n ), over ruled on other

groundsby John son & Hi

ggi ns of Tex. , I nc. v. Kenneco Ener

gy, I nc. , 962 S. W . 2d 507, 530 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); F

itzg era ld

v. L a F

ren i ere , 658 S . W . 2d 692, 696 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pusChr i st i 1983 ) ( hol di ng do cum entof f er ed f orl i m i t ed pur pos e o f s h o w in g i t ha d b e e n g i v e n to p a rt yan d n e v e r r e -offere d rem a i n e d su bj e c t t o l i m i te d te n d e r a n d w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f o th e r fa c t s o u g h t to b e p ro v e d ), rev’ d on other groun ds, 6 6 9 S .W .2 d 1 1 7 (T e x . 1 9 8 4 ); se e a l so Pe a ster I

n dep . S ch . D i

st. v. Glo dfelty , 6 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.) (“[E]v i d e n c e sp e c i fi c a l l yo ffered o n l y f o r a l i m i ted p u rpo se rem a i n s s u bj e c t t o i t s l i m i t e d p u r pos e; co ns equ ent l y, s uch ev i den cei s si m pl y no tpr oba t i ve e v i d e n c e o f a n yo th e r fa c t.” ). 6 w h i c h i s a d m i ss i b l e a s to o n e p a rt y o r fo r on e p u rpo se b u t no t ad m i ss i b l e as to
a n o t h e rp a rt yo rf o ra n o t h e rp u r p o s e is a d m it t e d , t h e c o u rt , u p o n re q u e s t , s h a ll
re s tri c t th e e v i d e n c e to i t s p r o p e r s c o p e .” Evi dence adm i t t ed f ora l i m i t ed 4 pur pose m ay be consi der ed f oronl y t hatpur pose. 5 O urr evi ew oft he r ec or d s how s t hat t he not ebo ok w asof f er ed w hen t he coup l e’ s adul t son, Brad H ancock, w as on t he w i t ness st and, aft erhe had been
sw or n butbe f or e h e t es t i f i ed. W hen as k e d i fheha d a ny o bj ec t i onst o t he adm i ss i on oft he not ebo ok, V i ck i ’ s l aw yerr epl i ed,

YourH onor , i n t he con f er enc e th a t w e h ad att he ben ch a f ew m i nutesago, I ’ m af r ai d t hi s — and I don’ tant i ci pat e t her e ar e,7

b u t ift her e i s any sett l em entnegoti at i ons i n her e, I w oul d obj ect t o t h a t. A n d i f th i s i s b e i n g o ffe re d a sa s u m m a ryo f M r. H a n c o c k ’ste s ti m o n y , I d o n ’t h a v e a n yo b j e c ti o n s s o l o n g a s i t’s r es t r i ct ed t o a s um m ary — T h e tri a l c o u r t r e p l i e d , “A d m i tte d a s a s u m m a ryo f th e w i tn e s s ’ te s ti m o n y .” G l enn ’ s att or neyr ef er r ed t o t he not ebo ok w hi l e que st i oni ng Br ad. G l enn di d not t e s t if ya tt r ia l. A c c o r d in g ly , b e c a u s e t h e t r ia l c o u rta d m it t e d t h e n o t e b o o ko n ly
a s a s u m m a ry oft he w i t nes s’ s t es t i m ony, an d t he onl y M r . H anc ockw ho t est i f i ed w as Br ad, w e excl ude t he notebook f r om ourr evi ew oft he evi dence
a n d e x c l u d e Gl e n n ’ s a r g u me n t s b a s e d o n t h e n o t e b o o kf r o m o u ra n a l y s i s . Of
cour se, t o t he ext entt hata n y speci f i c port i on of t he notebook w as adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence w i t hou tl i m i t at i on el sew her e dur i ng t he t r i al , w e w il l consi der
su ch port i on. I I I . S tan d a rd o f R e v i e w : D i v i sion o f a C o m m u n ity E sta te A s t hi s cou rtha s pr evi ous l y e xpl ai ned , I n a d i v o rce p roc e e d i n g , th e tr i a l co u rti s c h a rge d w i th d i v i d i n g th e c o m m u n i tye s ta te i n a “j u s t a n d ri g h t” m a n n e r, consi der i ng th e r i ghtsofbot h part i es. Tr i al court s ar e af f or ded w i de di scr et i on i n di vi di ng m ar i t al pr opert y upo n di vor ce; t her ef or e, a t r i al court ’ s pr opert y di vi si on m a y n o t be di st ur bed on appeal un l e s s t he com pl ai ni ng pa rt y de m ons t r at esf r om ev i den cei n t he r ecor d t hatt he di vi si on w as so unj ustand unfai ras t o const i t ut e an a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . T o d e te rm i n e w h e th e r a tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n , w e m us tde ci de w het hert he t r i al co urt ac t ed w i t hout r ef er enc e t o a ny gui di ng r ul es orpr i nci pl es; i n ot herw or ds, w e m ustdeci de w het her6 ... S c haban
-Maurer v. Maurer- S chaban , 238 S . W . 3d 815, 820 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (cita ti o n s o m i tte d ). 8 th e a c t w a s a r b i t r a ryo r u n re a s o n a b l e . W e m u s t i n d u l g e e v e ry r easonabl e pr esum pt i on i n f avoroft he t r i al court ’ s pr operexer ci se o fd is c r e t io n in d iv id in g m a r it a l p r o p e rt y . A c c o r d in g ly , w e w ill r e v e r s e o n ly if t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rtc le a r ly abu se d i t s di sc r et i on, an d t he er r or m at er i al l y af f ec t ed t he j us tan d r i ght di vi si on of t he com m uni t y est at e.

. . . I n exer ci si ng i t s di scr et i on, t he t r i al courtm ustor deran e q u i tab l e , b u t no t ne c e ss a ri l yeq u a l , d i v i sion o f t h eco m m u n i ty e sta te. I n d i v i d i n g th e e sta te, the tr i a l co u rtca n co n side r a v a ri e ty o f f a c to rs, an d i t i s p res u m e d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtex e rci se d i ts di sc r et i on pr ope r l y. 6 I V . T h eT ri a lC o u rt ’s D i v i sion o f t h eH a n c o c k s’ C o m m u n ity E sta te I n hi s f i r sti ssue, G l enn con t ends t hatt he t r i al courtm ade an unj ust d i v i s i o n o f th e m a ri ta l e s ta te . A . N o W ast e by V i cki I n h i s s e v e n th i ss u e , G l e n n c o n ten d s th a t th e tr i a l c o u rt fai l e d to tak e i n to
accoun tm oney w ast ed by V i cki i n m aki ng a j ustand r i ght di vi si on of t he m ar i t al
es t at e. O urr evi ew oft he adm i t t ed evi den cer eve al s t hatBr ad t es t i f i ed t hathe had seen “over10 or20 " bun dl es of$1 00 bi l l s bef or e “Y2 K hi t ” i n t he part i es’ C r estLake hom e, t hathe di d not r ecal l w hen he l astsaw t he m oney b uti tw as ats om e p oi ntbe f or e h e w asor der ed t o m ove i n w i t h hi s f at her i n 200 4, an d t h a t w h e n h e la s tk n e w w h o h a d p o s s e s s io n o ft h e m o n e y , t h e p e r s o n in7 ... Id. a t821– 22.
8 ... Id. 9 possessi on w as V i cki . G l enn do es notr ef ert o any oth e radm i t t ed evi dence. Th e f act f i nder i s t he sol e j udg e ofcr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nesses. A s fa c tfin d e r, 7 t he t r i al co urtw asi n a be t t erpos i t i on t o det er m i ne t he ca ndor , dem ea nor , an d
c re d ib i l i t y oft he w i t nesses. W e c a nn ot s a y t ha t t he t r i a l c ou rt a bu s e d i ts 8 d i sc reti o n b yi m p l i c i tl yfi n d i n g tha t V i c k i d i d n o t w a ste a n y o f th e co m m u n i ty est at e. W e over r ul e G l enn’ s sevent h i ssue. B. V al ue ofH ancock I nsur ance A gency I n hi s ei ght h i ss ue, G l enn co nt end s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by v al ui ng H anc ockI ns ur anc e Agenc y a t$170 , 520 . 00 w hen t her e w as n o e v i d enc e o r f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent evi den ce t o su pportt hatf i ndi ng. Br yan Ri ce , w hom t he t r i al courtappoi nt ed t o eval uat e t he i nsur ance agency , t est i f i ed on t he f i r stday oft r i al t hathi s opi ni on a s oft hatda t e, Jul y 17, 2 0 0 6 , w ast hatt he val ue of t h e in s u r a n c e a g e n c yw a s a p p r o x im a t e ly$ 2 0 4 ,0 0 0 .0 0 s u bje c tt o a p o s s ib le ju d g m e n to fa b o u t$ 8 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . H e a ls o t e s t if ie d t h a t t h e p r o je c t e d re n e w a ls ofpol i ci esf r om A ugus t1 t hr ough t he end oft he yea rw asab out$3. 4 m i l l i on i n gr os s pr em i um s fo r th e r es toft he yea r . He es t i m at ed t hatt en per ce ntof t hose r enew al dol l ar s, or$3 40 , 00 0. 00 , w oul d be t he appr oxi m at e agency10

r evenue fort he r em ai nde r o f th e year . H e t est i f i ed t hathe used t hat per cent age r at e because i tw as hi st or i cal and t haton aver age t he r at e r anged f r om 8 t o 1 2 p er cent . H e al so t est i f i ed t hati n const r uct i ng a cur r entbal ance sh ee tf ort he age ncy , he con si der ed “c as h, a che ckt hat ’ s r ec ei vab l e f r om t he I RS, [ and ] a sm al l as se ss m entf orf ur ni t ur e a nd s uppl i es , ” and t hen he “s ubt r ac t ed f r om th e to ta l as se t s of[ $] 442 , 000 t he l i abi l i t i esofab out $17 0, 0 0 0 .0 0 to ge tt o a n una dj us t ed bookva l ue ofab out[ $] 272 , 000 , ” and t h e n h e “ a s s e s s e d a 2 5 p e r c e n t d i s c o u n t f o r l a c k o f ma r k e t a b i l i t yoft he
a g e n c y ,” re a c h i n g a n e t v a l u e o f $ 2 0 4 ,0 9 9 .0 0 . M or e t ha n f i vew e e k s l a t e r , on t he s e c on d da y oft r i a l , Aug us t24, 2006 , B r y a n R ic e id e n t if ie d P e t it io n e r ’s E x h ib it9 S 2 a s “ a t w o -p a g e d o c u m e n tw h e r e in [ he] br oughtf or w ar d . . . t he val uat i on oft he a g e n c y an d m or e c ur r ent
num ber s[ , ] t ak i ng i nt o a cc ountm or e u pda t ed f ac t s and ci r cum st anc es . ” The docu m entsum m ar i zes hi s opi ni on as t o t he agency ’ s val ue as oft hatdat e, A ugus t 24, 200 6. The f i r stpa ge oft he exh i bi tpr ovi desa com put at i on e ndi ng i n $1 70 , 52 0. 00 , l abel ed as “ A dj ust ed V al ue? ” Ri ce expl ai ned ho w he ar r i ved att he val ue, I s um m ed t he as se t s of t he age ncy and f ut ur e — or i nco m e t o be ear ned i n t he next

— t hr oug h t he end of th is yearand t hen dedu ct ed f ut ur e expenses and l i abi l i t i es t o ar r i ve at a netasset v a l u e . I su b tr a c ted a 2 5 p e rce n t d i sc o u n t fo r l a c ko f m a rke tab i l i ty on t he netas se t s and ca m e t o a ne t v a l u e oft he age ncy . And I11

a l so p rov i d e d a — I ’d s a ya h y p o th e ti c a l ca l c u l a ti o n tak i n g i n to accoun tw het herornot t he conti ngen t l i abi l i t y or t he l i abi l i t y r el at ed t o t he . . . bui l di ng t hat . . . t he H ancock I nsur ance A gency vacated

— t her e i s . . . app ar ent l y, a j udgm entag ai ns tt he cor por at i on f or unp ai d r ent s, and t her e’ s a quest i on i n m y m i nd as t o w het hert hat a m o u n t i s a c tu a l l y g o i n g to e v e r b e p a i d , so I p rov i d e d the C o u rta sc ena r i o i fi t ’ s goi ng t o bepa i d ori fi t ’ s notgoi ng t o bepa i d.

. . . .

. . . . I w oul d be t he one t o have m ade t he paym entbecause I ’m th e R e c e i v e r f o r t h e co rpo rati o n , a n d I ’ve n o t be e n se rve d w i th anyt ypeofdoc um entor der i ng m e t o pa y t he j udgm ent . I ’ ve not r ec ei ved an y di r ec t i on f r om an y a t t or neyo r c o u rt t o pa y t he j u d g m e n t. Ri ceal so ex pl ai ned t hatheco ns i der ed f ut ur e com m i ss i ons i n val ui ng t he busi ness [b ]e c a u s e t h e y. . . r e p r e s e n t lik e lyb e n e f it s t o b e e a r n e d b yt h is

. . . bus i nes s i n t he very nea r f ut ur e, w i t hi n t he nex tf ourm ont hs or— s o[ . T] hes e com m i ss i ons hav e a very l eng t hy hi st ory ofbe i ng ear ned yearaft eryear . A s . . . I st at ed, t her e’ s no guar ant ee t hat t h e s e c o m m is s io n s w ill b e e a r n e d , b u tI w o u ld s a yit ’s p r o b a b le th a t th e yw i l l b e e a rn e d . H e a l s o te s ti fi e d th a t th e 2 5 % d i s c o u n t i s a h i g h e r th a n n o rm a l d i s c o u n t fo r a c o n tro l l i n g i n te re s t, i n h i s o p i n i o n . O n c r os s- exa m i nat i on , R i c e ad m i t t ed t hatt her e w asno b uye rf ort he agency at t he t i m e and t hathe had no tbeen approached by a potent i al buyer dur i ng hi s te rm o f recei ver shi p, w hi ch had l ast ed abou tei ghteen m onths. V i cki t est i f i ed t hatshe bel i eved t hat G l enn had t aken act i ons t o di m i ni sh12

t h e v a l u e o ft h e a g e n c y and h a d d i v e rt e d b u s i n e s s f r o m t h e a g e n c y . As evi dence, she poi nt ed t o t he f actt h a t G l enn had t r ansf er r ed t hei rper sonal hom eow ner s’ i ns ur anc e a nd a ut o i ns ur anc e p o l i ci esf r om t he age ncyw i t hout herkn ow l edg e. She r ec ei ved a l ett er aft er t he f ac tf r om t he i ns ur anc e c om pan y st at i ng t hatt he age ntofr ec or d ( G l enn ) had bee n cha nge d t o ano t herag enc y. She a l s o te st i f i ed t hatG l enn ha d, dur i ng t he pen den cy oft he di vor ce , s etup tw o o th e r c o m p a n i e s , H a n c o c k In s u ra n c e & A s s o c i a te s a n d N a ti o n a l H e a l th c a re I ns ur anc e Res our ce s, t o w hi ch he had di vert ed $30 0–$ 400 , 000 . 00, r ec ei vi ng pr oce edsunde ra di f f er ent bus i nes s nam e t hatt he t r i al co urtha d or der ed t he
r ece i v e r t o r e c e i v e . S h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e t h o u g h t t h a t t h i s a c t i on al so contr i buted t o t he decl i ne or t he dem i se of t he agency. Furt her , she t est i f i ed t hati n he ropi ni on, i fG l enn ha d be en doi ng a l l he cou l d t o i m pr ovet he val ue of t he age ncy , i tw oul d bew ort h m or e t han $204 , 000 . 00, an d t hatpr i ort o t he di vor ce , t heyha d be en of f e re d 1 .5 t i m est he “b ook ” ofbus i nes s f ort he
com pany. A tt he t i m e she t est i f i ed, t hatm easur e w oul d have m ade t he agency
w o rth a b o u t $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . G le n n ’s e x p e rt , R o b e rtM a rt i n, te s t if ie d t h a tt h e a g e n c yh a d a p p r o x im a t e ly t w el ve l ar ge accoun t s bef or e r ecei ver shi p but onl y one as of t he f i r st day oft r i al
a n d t ha t t he di m i nu t i on i n va l ue of t he bu s i ne s s s i nc e i t ha d e nt e r e d i n to
re c e i v e rs h i p w a s i n d i c a ti v e o f G l e n n ’si m p o rta n c e to th e b u s i n e s s .9 ... 8 8 3 S .W .2 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ). 13 G l enn co nt end s t hatRi ce ’ s r epo rt i s bas ed on a n i nco r r ec tas su m pt i on t hatt he agency w i l l have a 10 0% r enew al r at e. The evi dence show s t hatRi ce con si der ed t he l onge vi t y of t he ac cou nt s f orw hi ch he pr oj ec t ed r ene w al s, t he sh ortt er m t hatw oul d e l aps e b ef or e t he r eve nuew oul d s t art r ol l i ng i n, an d t he p o s s i b i l i tyth a t th e c u s to m e rs w o u l d n o t re n e w . T h i s p o s s i b i l i ty a l s o a p p e a rs
w ove n i nt o t he hi ghe r - t han

- us ual25% di sc ount r at e. G l enn ’ s r el i anc e o n t he l os tpr of i t s ana l ys i s i n Szczepani k v. Fi r st Souther

n Trus tCo. i n ar gui ng t hat

9 th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e a s a m a t te r o f l a w o f th e a g e n c y ’sv a l u e i s th e re fo re
m i sp l ac ed. G l enn al so co m pl ai nst hatRi cef ai l ed t o r edu ce t he age ncy ’ s val ue by a l i qui dat ed j udg m entof$6 1, 38 7. 00 . Ri ce expl ai ned w hy he di d not i ncl ude t hat
am ounti n hi s es t i m at ed val ue oft he com pan y bu tal so not ed t h e a m o u n ton th e rep o rtan d h i s a l tern a te e sti m a te b e h i n d i t. G l enn ad di t i ona l l y c ont end s t hatRi ce di d not r end eran opi ni on t hatt he val ue w as$170 , 52 0 .00 butr at herque st i one d w het hert hatam ountw ast he
v a l u e . R i c e te s ti fi e d th a t th e e x h i b i t s u m m a ri z e s h i s o p i n i o n a s to th e a g e n c y ’s val ue as oft hatdat e, A ugu st24 , 20 06 . The f i r stpage oft he exhi bi t , w hi ch pr ovi desan es t i m at e o ft he val ue i gnor i ng t he a l l ege d j udgm entag ai ns tt he10 ... G olden Eagle Archery, I nc. v. Ja ckso n , 116 S. W . 3d 757, 761 ( Tex. 2 0 0 3 ).

11 ... McGal

l i ard v. Kuhl

m ann , 7 2 2 S .W .2 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ).

14 com pany, pr ovi des a com putat i on endi ng i n $ 17 0, 52 0. 00 , l abel ed as “ A dj ust ed V al ue? ”. W e concl ude t hatt he evi dence easi l y l ends i t sel f t o a concl usi on t hat R i ce opi ned t hatt he est i m at ed val ue oft he com pany o n A ugu st24 , 20 06 w as $170, 520. 00. Fi nal l y, G l enn ar gues t hatt he ant i ci pat ed r enew al s shoul d not have been in c lu d e d in t h e v a lu e a ta ll b e c a u s e t h e yw o u ld n o tb e e a r n e d o rre c e iv e d u n t il af t ert he di vor ce and t hus w er e nott hem sel ves com m uni t y pr opert y. Because t he busi ness w as t he com m uni t y assetbei ng val ued, nott he in d iv id ual
r enew a ls, w e cannot say t hatRi ce i m pr oper l y consi der ed t he ant i ci pat ed
r eve nuei n va l ui ng t he age ncyort hatt he t r i al c ourtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by i n c l u d i n g th e a m o u n t i n i ts v a l u a ti o n o f th e a g e n c y . A s t he f ac t f i nde r , t he t r i al co urtw ast he so l e j udgeoft he cr edi bi l i t y of
w i t nes se s and t he w ei ghtt o begi ven t o t hei rt es t i m ony an d c oul d r es ol ve any 10 i ncon si st enci es i n t he evi dence. Based on t he above d i scussi on, w e hol d t hat 11 t he t r i al courtdi d not abuse i t s di scr et i on byval uin g th e i nsur ance agencyat $1 70 , 52 0. 00 . W e over r ul e G l enn’ s ei ghth i ssue. C . Fr aud on t he C om m uni ty and W ast e Su ppo rt ed by Ev i dence12 ... Lo ai za v. Lo ai

za , 1 3 0 S .W .3 d 8 9 4 , 9 0 0

– 0 1 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.) (cita ti o n s o m i tte d ). 15 A p p a re n tl ya s s u b i s s u e s to h i s g l o b a l i s s u e c o n te n d i n g th a t th e tri a l c o u rt abu se d i t s di sc r et i on i n di vi di ng t he com m uni t y es t at e, G l enn con t end s t hatt he evi den cei s l ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent t o su pportt he t r i al co urt ’ s f i ndi ngs th a t h e c o m m i tte d fra u d o n th e c o m m u n i tya n d w a s te d c o m m u n i tya s s e ts . A s t hi s cou rtha s pr evi ous l y e xpl ai ned , T h e T e x a s S u p r e me C o u rt h a s r e c o g n i z e d wa s t e of com m uni t y as se t s as a f ac t or t o be t ak en i nt o con si der at i on i n t he d i v i s i o n o f th e c o m m u n i tye s ta te . . . .

. . . . A fi d u c i a ry d u ty e x i sts b e tw e e n a h u sb a n d an d a w i fe r egar di ng t he com m uni t y p ro pert y contr ol l ed by each spou se. “F r aud on t he com m uni t y” i s a j udi ci al l y cr ea t ed con ce pt bas ed on t he t heor y ofconst r uct i ve f r aud and i s appl i ed w hen t her e i s a b re a c h o f a l e g a l o r e q u i ta b l e d u ty , w h i c h v i o l a te s th i s fi d u c i a ry r e la t io n s h ip e x is t in g b e t w e e n s p o u s e s . A lt h o u g h n o ta c t u a lly f r audu l ent , any such con duct i n t he m ar i t al r el at i onshi p i s t er m ed f r aud on t he com m uni ty bec aus e i tha s al l t he con se que nce s and l ega l ef f ec t s of ac t ual f r aud si nce t he con duc tt end s t o de ce i ve t he o th e r s p o u s e o r v i o l a te s m a ri ta l c o n fi d e n c e s . A pr esum pt i on of const r uct i ve f r aud ar i ses w her e one spou se br eaches t he f i duci ar y duty ow ed t o t he ot her spouse and di sposes o f t h e o th e r sp o u se ’s o n e - h a l f i n tere st i n co m m u n i ty p rop e rt y w i t houtt he ot her ’ s kno w l edg e or con se nt . W hen t hatoc cur s, t he b u r d e n o fp r o o fiso n t h e d is p o s in g s p o u s e t o s h o w f a ir n e s s in di sposi ng of com m uni t y asset s. 12 W as t e o fco m m uni t y a ss et s occ ur s w he n a s p o us e w r ongf ul l y de pl et est he13 ... S chlueter v. Sch l ueter, 9 7 5 S .W .2 d 5 8 4 , 5 8 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ).

16 c o m m u n i ty’s a ss e ts w i th o u t t h e o th e r sp o u se ’s kn o w l e d g e o r co n se n t. 13 T h e tr i a l co u rtfou n d tha t G l e n n h a d co m m i tted fr a u d o n the co m m u n i ty
a nd ha d w asted co m m un i t y a sse t s byi m prop erl y d i sp os i ng of c e r t a in
com m uni t y pr opert y dur i ng t he pend ency of t he di vor ce. Speci f i cal l y, t he t r i al
courtf oun d t hatG l enn had e x p e nded $1 71 , 97 1. 71 ofH ancock I nsur ance A g e n c y , I n c . fu n d s a n d $ 1 2 1 ,3 3 4 .7 0 o f r e ti rem e n t f u n d s fo r hi s s o l e b e n e fi t. G lenn had al so di sobeyed the t r i al court ’ s or dert o depo si t$3 6, 00 0. 00 , cash
o n h a n d “ a t t h e ra n c h ,” i n to th e i n s u ra n c e a g e n c ya c c o u n t. T h e tri a l c o u rt fo u n d tha t, b u t f o r G l e n n ’s fr a u d o n th e c o m m u n i ty a n d w a ste , th e co m m u n i ty
e s t a t e w ou l d ha veb e e n l a r ge rb y $329, 306. 41.

1. The $171, 971 . 71 i n I ns ur anc e Agenc y Fu nds G le n n c o n t e n d s t h a tV ic k i o f f e r e d n o e v id e n c e w h yt h e $ 1 7 1 ,9 7 1 .7 1 in t h e in s u r a n c e a g e n c y ’s f u n d s t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rtf o u n d w e r e e x p e n d e d s o le ly t o benefi tG l enn w er e a w ast e or f r aud on t he com m uni t y. V i cki t est i f i ed t hat G l enn pa i d hi m se l ft he $17 1, 971 . 71 f r om t he i ns ur anc e a gen cy w i t houtt he t r i al cou rt ’ s app r ova l w hi l e t her e w er e t em por ary or der s i n pl ac e “ t hats ai d how
m uch m oney” each spou se w as t o r ecei ve. She an sw er ed af f i r m at i vel y w hen asked i ndi r ect l y w het hershe “f el t[ t hose] w er e benefi t s t hat[ G l enn] r ecei ved17

t hat[ sh e] di dn’ tr ec ei ve equ al be nef i tf r om ” and i ndi c a te d t hathew asnot
a u th o ri z e d b yth e tri a l c o u rt to m a k e th e m a n d th a t s h e o bj e c te d to th e m . Th e accountantf ort he agency , W al t erV i r den, t est i f i ed t hatt he H ancocks had pai d bi l l s outoft he i nsur ance agencyt hatw oul d gener al l y getr ecl assi f i ed
ass har eho l derdi st r i but i o n s ; t hatheha d ha d t o m ak e t hos e k i ndsof adj ust m ent s “pr et ty m u ch t he ent i r e t i m e” — t w ent y- f i ve year s— t hathe had been r epr esent i ng t hem ; t hati n t he past , even bef or e t he di vor ce, r anch exp ens esha d be en pai d o utoft he age ncy ; an d t hatV i ck i ’ s num ber s di d not
ac cou ntf oran y de pos i t s t hatG l enn orV i ck i m i ghtha ve m adei nt o t he age ncy . W hen asked i fhe “not i ce[ d] anyt hi ng unu sual oranyt hi ng t hatw oul d suggest t hatG l enn . . . ha[ d] p e rs o n a ll y benefi t t ed f r om ” t he agencyf und s, V i r den
a n s w e r e d , “ W e ll, t h e r e ’s a — n o , b e c a u s e h e r e I c a n ’t t e ll

— l i k e — w e ll, t her e’ s a D i sh N et
— D i sh N et w or k ( si c) f or $3 5. 25 . I don ’ tknow w hatt hat
w oul d be f or . ” H e answ er ed, “Per haps, “ w hen asked w het herG l enn had “pr obab l y per sonal l y benefi t[ t] e d” f r om t hat . O n cr oss- exam i nat i on, V i r den st at ed th a t he di d notkn ow “ w het her[ G l enn ] di d or. . . di d notr ec ei ve p e rs o n a l b e n e fi t” fro m th e fu n d s . V i r den t es t i f i ed, The e xpl ana t i on f ort hos e i t em s w oul d ha ve bee n i n t he book s of th e c o m p a n yu n d e r v a ri o u s e x p e n s e c a te g o ri e s . A n d , a l s o , th e re w er e i t em s ofcr ed i t s w her e m one y w aspa i d ba ckt o t he14 ... S eeLo ai za , 130 S. W . 3d a t901.
15 ... S ee G olden Eagle A rchery, I nc. , 1 1 6 S .W .3 d a t 7 6 1 . 16 ... S e eMc Ga l

l i a rd, 722 S. W . 2d a t697.

18 cor por at i on e i t herf r om H anc ock I ns ur anc e or f r om M r . H anc ockor M r s. H anco c k. . . [ , ] a n d t h o s e c r e d i t s a r e n o tr e f l e c t e d i n t h e se num ber s. H e al so t est i f i ed t hata t ot al of $1 14 , 00 0. 00 i n depo si t s had been m ade t hat
w er e notr ef l ect ed i n V i cki ’ s num ber s. Th e bur den w as noton V i cki t o j ust i f y t he expend i t ur es. Becau se V i cki p u to n e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e mo n e ywa s s pe ntwi t h o u th e rc o n s e n t , i tb e c a me G l enn ’ s bur den t o s how t hat t he $17 1, 971. 71 w asex pen ded f ai r l y. F u rth e r, 14 t he t r i al co urtas th e fa c tfin derw ast he so l e j udgeoft he cr edi bi l i t y oft he
w i t nes se s and t he w ei ghtt o begi ven t o t hei rt es t i m ony an d c oul d r es ol ve any 15 i ncon si st enci es i n t he evi dence. 16

2. Th eRe t i r e m e ntF un dso f$121 , 334. 70 R egar di ng t he w i t hdr aw n r et i r em entf und s of$1 21 , 33 4. 70 , G l enn al so cl ai m ed t hatt her e w as no evi dence ori nsuf f i ci entevi dence t o suppo rtt he t r i al
court ’ s f i ndi ng t hathe had w ast ed or com m i t t ed f r aud on t he com m uni t y. V i cki t est i f i ed t hatG l enn had w i t hdr aw n $ 25 0, 00 0. 00 f r om t he S outhw estSecu r i t i es
r e t i r e m e nta c c ou nt s . Oft ha t a m ou nt , $50, 000. 00 w a s s e ntd i r e c t l y t o t heI RS. O f t he r em ai ni ng $ 20 0, 00 0. 00 , G l enn used $ 10 0, 00 0. 00 t o pur chase a17 ... Pet i t i oner ’ s exhi bi t81 r eveal s t hatt he act ual t ot al am oun tw i t hdr aw n

f r om t he accoun t
— i ncl udi ng checks and ot herdebi t s— w as $1 9, 81 4. 69 . G i ven t h e s iz e o ft h e e s t a t e , t h e $ 1 8 5 .3 1 d is c r e p a n c yisim m a t e r ia l.

18 ... See Lo ai

za , 130 S. W . 3d a t901.

19 cert i f i cat e ofdeposi t( C D ) . T h e tr ial courtadm i t t ed an exhi bi tshow i ng t hat G l enn r ec ei ved a ca sh i er ’ s che ckof $10 1, 334 . 70 f or t he m at ur ed C D . Gl enn d e p o s i t e d t h e c h e c k i n t o t h e r a n c h a c c o u n t , r e c e i v i n g $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 i n c a s h . He te s ti fi e d a t a n e a rl i e r h e a ri n g th a t h e p a i d $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 i n c a s h to h i s s i s te r. Th er e i s no ev id e nce r egar di ng t he r em ai ni ng $ 15 , 00 0. 00 . V i cki r equest ed
re c o u p m e n t o f th e e n ti re a m o u n t o f th e m a tu re d C D

— $ 1 0 1 ,3 3 4 .7 0 . O utoft he ot her$100 , 000 . 00, V i ck i t es t i f i ed th a t s eve n orei ghtda ys aft erG l enn r equ es t ed a $50 , 000 . 00 di st r i but i on f r om Sout hw es tSecu r i t i es , he dep os i t ed $50 , 000 . 00 i nt o a n a cc ountat Fi r st St at e Bank . Gl enn w r ot e s om e checks t o hi m sel fand f orr anch re la te d e xpenses and i ncur r ed ot her
m i s c e l l a ne ou s d e bi t s t ot a l i n g a pp r ox i m a t e l y $20, 000. 00. Vi ck i s ought 17
r e c ou pm e nto ft he $ 2 0 , 000. 00. Gl e nn c on t e nd s t ha tt hee nt i r e $20, 000. 00
w a s fo r th e p a y m e n t o f ra n c h e x p e n s e s . A g a i n , i t w a s n o t V i c k i ’sb u rd e n to p ro v e th a t th e e x p e n d i tu re s w e re
u n fa i r, b u t, o n c e s h e c h a l l e n g e d th e m , G l e n n ’sb u rd e n to p ro v e th a t th e yw e re fa i r. The t r i al co urtast he f ac t f i nde rw as t he so l e j udge of t he cr edi bi l i t y of 1819 ... S ee G olden Eagle A rchery, I nc. , 116 S. W . 3d a t761.
20 ... S e eMc Ga l

l i a rd, 722 S. W . 2d a t697.

20 t he evi dence an d co u l d h a rm o n i ze i t. 19 20 3. Th e $3 6, 00 0. 00 C ash f r om Ran ch W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 , Gl e n n c o n t e n d s t h a t n o e v i d e nce w as adm i t t ed on t hi s i ssue. V i cki t est i f i ed as f ol l ow s:

Q . A n d t h e n t h e r e w a s $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 t h a tM r . H a n c o c kp a id fr o m the F i rst S tate B a n kp u rsu a n t t o — i n h i s o p i n i o n , p u rsu a n t t o a C o u rto rde r; i s th a t co rr e c t? A . Y es. Q . W h a t i s y o u r re c o l l e c ti o n o f th e $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 th a t M r. H anc ockw ast o puti nt o Hancoc k I ns ur anc e Agenc y? A . W el l , dur i ng court , Judg e H addo ck had asked i fhe had any otherf und s, any cash f und s, anyw her e. She sai d hi dden under a r oc ko rw ha t e ve r . And h e s a i d ye s , h e d i d, h e h a d $36, 000. 00 att he r anch i n c a s h . A n d she had or der ed hi m t o depo si tt hat m o n e yin t o t h e a g e n c y a c c o u n t t h e n e x tm o r n in g — o rb ya c e rt a in

— by 9 : 00 a. m . , I bel i eve. Q . S o in s t e a d o ft a k in g $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 i n c a s h f r o m h is r a nc h, h e w e ntt o t he Fi r s t St a t e Ba nka nd w i t hd r e w $36, 000. 00, c o rr e c t? A . Y es. Q . A nd he dep os i t ed t hati nt o Hancoc k I ns ur anc e Agenc y? A . Y es.21 Q . A nd t hat ’ s 36, 000 o f r et i r em entm one y, ba si ca l l y, ri g h t? A . Y es. Q . Th at ’ s — t he m oney f r om — f r om S outhw estSecu r i t i es w entdi r ect l y t o Fi r stStat e Ban k — A . U h- huh. Q . [I ]s tha t r i g h t? A . Y es. Pet i t i oner ’ s Exhi bi t81 show s t hat G l enn m ade a $3 6, 00 0. 00 w i t hdr aw al fr o m h i s F i rst S tate B a n kac c o u n t. V i c k i tes ti fi e d ab o u t i t:

Q . A n d i s th a t th e $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . . . w i th d ra w n b yM r. H anc ockan d de pos i t ed i nt o Hancoc k I ns ur anc e Agenc y? A . Y es. Q . . . . . D o y o u b e l i e v e th a t th i s w a s th e $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 M r. H anc ockw asr ef er r i ng t o t hatheha d i n c as h? A . N o. Q . W h yi s th a t? A . W e l l , b e c a u se h e ’s w ri ti n g a c h e c k o n th i s a c c o u n t t o d e p o siti t. T h a t’ s n o t a c a sh d e p o sit . V i c k i as k e d for a rec o u p m e n t o f t h e $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . G l e n n h a d the b u rde n to pr ov e th att he di sb ur se m entoft he $36 , 000 . 00 f r om t he ban k i n l i eu oft he21 ... S eeLo ai za , 130 S. W . 3d a t901.
22 ... S ee G olden Eagle A rchery, I nc. , 116 S. W . 3d at 7 6 1 ; s e eal so Mc Ga l l i a rd, 722 S. W . 2d a t697.
23 ... S eeT EX . R. E VID . 2 0 1 ; Ba rn a rd v. Ba rn a rd, 133 S. W . 3d 782, 786 ( Tex . A pp. — Fort W ort h 20 04 , pet . deni ed) ( “[ T] he t r i al courtm ay t ake j udi ci al noti ce of i t s f i l e at any st age of pr oceedi ngs and i s pr esum ed t o have do ne so w i th o r w i th o u t a re q u e s t fro m a p a rty .” ). 22 $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 .0 0 i n c a s h th a t h e , b yh i s o w n a d m i s s i o n , h a d a t th e ra n c h w a s fa i r, 21 and t he t r i al co urt w as t he so l e j udgeoft he cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi den cean d t he
w ei ght, i fany, each i t em ofevi dence shou l d have. 22 A d d i ti o n a l l y , th e tri a l c o u rt’sfi l e , w h i c h w e p re s u m e th e tri a l c o u rt j udi ci al l y no t i ce d, sh o w s th a t t h e tr i a l c o u rt g ran ted six d i fferen t m o ti o n s to 23
c o m p e l d is c o v e r yf ile d b yV ic k i. A m o n g o t h e r t h in g s , t h e t r ia l c o u rts p e c if ic a lly f oun d t hatG l enn had vi ol at ed agr eed i nt e rim t em por ar y or der s dat ed A ugu st 27, 2004 by i m pr ope r l y c anc el l i ng Vi ck i ’ s hea l t h i ns ur anc e c ove r age , i ncu r r i ng i nde bt edn es s ( $75 , 000 . 00) f orpur pos esot hert han l egal e x pen se s w hen he b o rro w e d m o n e yfro m h i s s i s te r, a n d w i th d ra w i n g $ 4 7 ,5 6 4 .5 7 v i a c a s h i e r’s che ck and payi ng offt he ent i r e bal ance oft he debt on hi s 20 04 C hevr ol et
m o to r v e h i c l e . T h e tri a l c o u rt a l s o fo u n d th a t G l e n n v i o l a te d te m p o ra ryo rd e rs d a ted N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 4b yfai l i n g to p a ythre e m o n th s’ sp o u sa l su p p o rtto V i ck i ; by w i t hdr aw i ng a l l pr oce eds( $10 1, 334 . 70) of a C D and m i sr epr es ent i ng orr efu s i ng t o di sc l os e t o t he t r i al co urt , orbot h, t he exi st enc e, am ount , or23

lo c a t io n o ft h e $ 1 0 1 ,3 3 4 .7 0 ; b yw it h d r a w in g $ 9 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in c a s h f r o m h is che ck i ng a cc ount ; by t r ans f er r i ng t he su m of $75 , 000 . 00 t o hi s si st er , an d by
w i th d ra w i n g a l l p ro c e e d s ($ 5 6 ,8 4 5 .9 6 ) o f a n o th e r C D . Based o n t he abov e di scussi on, w e hol d t hat t he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs t hat G l enn co m m i t t ed f r aud on t he com m uni t y and w as t ed com m uni t y a ss et s i n t he t ot al am ountof $32 9, 306 . 41 ar e s upport ed by l ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y s uf f i ci ent
e v i d e n c e . D . Bene f it s f r om Cont i nua t i on oft he M ar r i age, D i sp ar ity ofEa r ni ng Pow er ,Bu si ness O ppo rt uni t i es, C apabi l it i es,and A bi l it i es S upp ort ed B y Evi dence A l so a p p a re n tl y as subi ssues t o hi s cont ent i on t hatt he di vi si on w as unj us t , G l enn co nt end s t hat“ abs ol ut el y no evi den ce ” w asad m i t t ed ast o a ny oft he ben ef i t s t hatV i ck i w oul d h a v e de r i ved f r om t he con t i nua t i on oft he
m a rri a g e a n d th a t “ [t]h e o n l ye v i d e n c e o f th e d i s p a ri tyo f e a rn i n g p o w e r, b u s i n e s s o p p o rtu n i ti e s , c a p a b i l i ti e s [,] an d [th e p a rti e s ’] a b i l i tyto s u p p o rt t hem se l vesw asi n f avo rofV i ck i , ” t hati s, i tport r aye d V i ck i as t he per so n w ho
w a s m o re fi n a n c i a l l yc a p a b l e . I n f act , t he t r i al courthear d evi dence t hat

• th e l a s t t i m e V i c k i h a d g a i n fu l em p l o y m e n t oth e r t h a n se l fe m pl oy m e ntw a s a pp r ox i m a t e l y i n 1976;

• she had been o utof t he j ob m ar ketf orappr oxi m at el y t hi rt y year s;

• s h e h a d n o c u r r e n ts o u r c e s o fin c o m e a tt h e t im e o ft r ia l;24

• s h e h a d z e r o n e tre s o u r c e s a tt h e t im e o ft r ia l;

• sh e e st i m at ed t hat h erhe al t h i ns ur anc e w oul d r un $1, 100 . 00– $1, 500 . 00 p erm ont h a nd t hathe rm ont hl y l i vi ng e xp e ns e s w ou l d r un $11, 840. 21;

• a l t h o u g h s h e s e e me d s o me wh a tk n o wl e d g e a b l e a n d h a d s o me k n o w le d g e o ft h e a c c o u n t s , s h e w a s o flim it e d a s s is t a n c e in di scover i ng t he hi st or y ofand how t he i nsur ance agencyw or ks;

• G l enn i s cover ed by M edi car e;

• he st art ed at l ea st t w o ot herco m pan i esdur i ng t he pen den cy oft he di vor ce;

• h e i s a l i c e n se d i n su ran c e ag e n t;

• he w as t he onl y em pl oyee oft he i nsur ance agencyon t he f i r stday oft r i al an d w aspr i m ar i l y r es pons i bl e f orge ner at i ng vi rt ual l y a l l of th e i n c o m e o f t h e b u sine ss , e x c e p t a v e ry s m a l l am o u n t of c a su a l ty i nsur ance;

• th e i n su ran c e a g e n c yh a d ap p rox i m a tel ytw e l v e l a rge ac c o u n ts b e f o r e re c e iv e r s h ip a n d o n lyo n e a s o ft h e f ir s td a yo ft r ia l;

• t h e d im in u t io n in v a lu e o f t h e b u s in e s s s in c e it e n t e r e d re c e iv e r s h ip w as i ndi cat i ve ofG l enn’ s i m port ance t o t he busi ness. Bas ed on ou rr evi ew oft he evi den ce bef or e t he t r i al cou rt , w ho w ast he
s o l e f a c t f in d e ra n d ju d g e o ft h e c r e d ib ilit yo ft h e w it n e s s e s a n d w h o c o u ld
r esol ve t he i ncon si s te n c ie s in t he evi dence, w e hol d t hatt he evi dence w as l egal l y and f act ual l y suf f i ci entt o suppo rtt he t r i al court’ s im pl i ci tf i ndi ng t hat t he abo ve f ac t or s w ei ghe d i n f avo rofgi vi ng Vi ck i a l ar gers har e o ft he
com m uni t y est at e.25

E. N o Evi dence of G l enn’ s Faul ti n t he B reakup of t he M ar r i age, B u t N o H a rm I n hi s se con d i ss ue, G l enn con t end s t hat t he t r i al cou rt er r ed by g r ant i ng a d i sp r oport i ona t e a w ar d oft he m ar i t al es t at e o n t he bas i s o f fa u l tw hen t he di vor cew asgr ant ed on t he gr ound of i ns upport abi l i t y. I n hi s t hi r d i ss ue, G l enn con t end s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by aw ar di ng a di sp r oport i ona t e sh ar e oft he
m ar i t al est at e w hen no evi dence w as adm i t t ed as to G le n n ’s f aul t . W hi l e w e agr eew i t h Gl enn t hatt her e i s no evi den ce of G l enn ’ s f aul t i n t he br ea kup oft he
m a rri a g e , th e c h a l l e n g e d fi n d i n g o f fa c t re g a rd i n g fa u l t a c tu a l l ys ta te s , 6. C r edi bl e e vi den c e w a s ad m i t t ed t o s upportt he f ol l ow i ng f a c t o r s fo r co n siderati o nb ytheCo urt i n or der i ng a di vi si on oft he part i es’ est at e: a. G LEN N ’ s f aul ti n t he br eakup of t he m ar r i age; b . f r a u d o n t h e c o mm u n i t yc o mm i tt e d b yGL E NN;
c. ben ef i t s V I C KI m ay hav e der i ved f r om t he con t i nua t i on oft he m ar r i age; d. di sp ar i t y ofea r ni ng po w erofG LENN an d VI C KI an d t hei rabi l i t y t o suppo rtt hem sel ves; e. ea r ni ng po w er , bus i nes s opport uni t i es , ca pac i t i es , an d abi l i t i esofbot h s pous es ; an d f. w a s ti n g o f c o m m u n i tya s s e ts b y G L E N N . [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .] Th e f i ndi ng do es notcl ear ly st at e t hatt he t r i al courtconsi der ed f aul tas a f ac t or . Fu rt her , t he as so ci at ed con cl us i on ofl aw pr o v i des , “ Bas ed on t he24 ... S chaban
-Maurer, 238 S. W . 3d a t820.
25 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P . 4 4 .1 (a ); Lo ai za , 130 S. W . 3d a t904.
26 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1. 26 f ac t or s f ound by t he C ourt , V I C KI s houl d r ec ei ve a d i sp r oport i ona t e s har e o ft he part i es ’ co m m uni t y pr ope rt y. ” Beca us e nei t hert he f i ndi ng no rt he con cl us i on cl ear l y and un am big u o u s ly pr ovi des t hatt he t r i al courtact ual l y consi der ed G l enn ’ s f aul ti n a w ar di ng t he di vi si on ofpr ope rty , w e d o notm ak e t hatl ea p, i ndu l g i n g , a s we mu s t , “ e v e r yr e a s o n a b l e p r e s u mp t i o n i n f a v o ro ft h e t r i al
c o u rt’sp ro p e r e x e rc i s e o f d i s c re ti o n i n d i v i d i n g m a ri ta l p ro p e rty .” 24 F u rth e r, b e c a u s e th e e v i d e n c e o th e rw i s e s u p p o rts th e tri a l c o u r t ’s di spr opo rt i onate di vi si on of pr opert y based on al l t he f act or s di scussed above,
w e h o ld t h a tt h e e r r o n e o u s f in d i n g t h a tt h e r e w a s e v id e n c e o ff a u ltis i m m at er i al and har m l ess. W e t her ef or e over r ul e G l enn’ s t hi r d i ssue. Because 25 t her e w as no evi dence of f aul t , w e do not r each hi s second i ssue. 26 F. N o D oub l e Reco very by V i cki I n hi s f ourt h i ss ue, G l enn con t end s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed i n di vi di ng t he
m ar i t al es t at e b y es se nt i al l y gr ant i ng Vi ck i a doubl e r ec ove ry. A r evi ew oft he tri a l c o u rt’sfi n d i n g s o f fa c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w s h o w s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt
aw ar ded t he cou pl e a 71/ 29% s pl i t of t he exi st i ng com m uni t y t hat w oul d ha ve bee n an app r oxi m at el y 59. 5/40. 5% sp l i t abs ent G l enn ’ s f r aud o n the27 ... 8 5 5 S .W .2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 5 (T e x . 1 9 9 3 ).
28 ... 130 S. W . 3d a t900. 27 com m uni t y and w ast e and advances t hatt hey bo t h r ecei ved. The f i ndi ngs al so s h o w t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt r e l i e d o n o t h e rf a c t o r s b e s id e s w a s t e a n d f r a u d in
m ak i ng t he di sp r oport i ona t e d i v i s i on, s uch asbe nef i t s t hatV i ck i m ay hav e der i ved f r om t he conti nuati on of t he m ar r i age, t h e di spar i t y ofear ni ng po w er bet w een G l enn and V i cki , and t he ear ni ng po w er, b u s iness opp ort uni t i es, capaci t i es, and abi l i t i es ofbot h spouses, al l di scussed above. Because t he t r i al
cou rt ’ s f i ndi ngss how t hatt he t r i al co urtco ns i der ed m or e th a n Gl enn ’ s f r aud on t he com m uni t y and w as t e oft he com m uni t y a ss et s i n di vi di ng t he pr ope rt y,
w e cannot say t hatt he t r i al court aw ar ded V i cki a doubl e r ecover y orabused i tsd i s c re ti o n . N o i n d e p e n d e n t m o n e yj u d g m e n t w a s a w a rd e d h e re . G l e n n ’s
r el i anc e i n t hi s r ega r d on Tw ym an v. Tw ym an and on o urr ej ec t i on oft he 27

w i f e’ s ar gum ent s se ek i ng a n add i t i ona l j udgm enti n Lo ai za i s t husm i sp l ac ed. 28 W e o v e rru l e G l e n n ’sfo u rth i s s u e . G . G l enn N otEnt it l ed t o Fi fty Per centoft he A m oun tH e W ast ed I n hi s f i f t h i ss ue, G l enn co nt end s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng V i ck i a j udgm entf or100% oft he al l ege d am ount w as t ed by Gl enn w hen s he
w o u ld o n ly b e e n t it le d t o a n a w a r d o f f if t y p e r c e n t o f t h e a m o u n ta lle g e d ly
w as t ed. The t r i al co urtdi d notaw ar d Vi ck i an add i t i ona l j udgm ent . I ns t ea d,29 ... S eeT EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 7 .0 0 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); O suna v. Q ui ntana , 9 9 3 S .W .2 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.). 28 th e tr i a l co u rtaw a rde d V i c k i a d i sp rop o rt i o n a te s h a re o f t h e co m m u n i ty e sta te b a s e d o n m a n yfa c to rs , i n c l u d i n g G l e n n ’sw a s ti n g o f th e c o m m u n i tya s s e ts . A ddi t i ona l l y, w e poi nt out t hatco nt r ary t o Gl enn ’ s as se rt i on t hat“ hal fof th o se fu n d s w o u l d h a v e b e e n [hi s] i n a n y e v e n t, ” th e tr i a l c o u rt h a s n o d u ty to di vi d e a c o mmu n i t ye s t a t e , mu c h l e s s a s p e c i f i c a s s e t , e q u a l l yb e t we e n t he part i es upon di vor ce. W e over r ul e G l enn’ s f i f t h i ssue. 29 H . D i vi si on of A sset s on H and att he T i m e ofTr i al I n hi s si xt h i ss ue, G l enn con t end s t hat t he t r i al co urter r ed by d i vi di ng t he
com m un i ty e s ta te ba se d on as se t s noton h and att he t i m e o ft r i al . The f i ndi ngsoff ac tg i ven ab oves how t hatt he t r i al co urtdi vi ded t he as se t s on han d. The t r i al cou rt ’ s exp l ana t i on of how t he as se t s w as t ed and di sp os ed of t hr oug h G l enn’ s f r aud on t he com m u n ity im pact ed t he ul t i m at e di vi si on do es not r epl ace t he act ual di vi si on. W e over r ul e G l enn’ s si xt h i ssue. I . Th e Tr i alC ourt ’ s D i vi si on of t he H ancocks’Est at e N otU nj ust G i ven t he abov e di scussi on, w e hol d t hatG l enn has not dem onst r at ed th a t th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n i n d i v i d i n g th e c o m m u n i tye s ta te . W e over r ul e hi s f i r sti ssue. V . C onc l us i on29

H a v i n g o v e rru l e d G l e n n ’s e i g h t i s s u e s a s w e l l a s h i s s u b i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL B: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d HO LM A N , JJ. DEL I VERE D: J ul y 31, 2008