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

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 0 3 3 - CV
J E R R Y W . W I L L I AM S , J R . AP P E L L ANT V . D A N I ELL E M A RI E W I LL I A M S A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 393RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A ppe l l antJe r ry W . W i l l i am s, Jr . ap pea l s f r om a di vor cede cr eedi ss ol vi ng hi s m ar r i age t o A ppel l ee D ani el l e M ar i e W i l l i am s. I n f ouri ssues, Jer ry ar gues t hatt he t r i al cou rt er r ed by m i sc har ac t er i z i ng pr ope rt y, i nco r r ec t l y va l ui ng t he
m a ri ta l e s ta te s , a n d i m p ro p e rl y d i v i d i n g th e c o m m u n i tye s ta te . W e w i l l a ffir m .2 II . F ACT UALANDP ROC ED URALB ACKGROUND Th e t r i a l c ou rts i gn e d a f i n a l d e c re e o fd i vo r c e o n Ja nu a ry 12, 2006 , di ss ol vi ng J er ry’ s and D ani el l e’ s m ar ri age . The t r i alco urten t er ed f i ndi ngsof fa c t, w h i c h i n c l u d e d i n p a rt th e fo l l o w i n g f i n d i n g sre l e v a n t to th e W i l l i a m s ’s pr opert y at88 1 B l ackj ack Ro ad, r ef er r ed t o as t he “r anch pr opert y”: [ Dan i e l l e ] a nd [ Je r ry] p ur c ha s e d t he [ r a nc h pr op e rt y, ] on Augu s t7, 19 97 , and had a no t e w i t h a f i nal m at ur i t y paym entdue on A ugu st 1, 2000 . W hen t he f i nalm at ur i t y pa ym entbe ca m e d ue i n t he su m m erof 2 0 0 0 , [D a n i e l l e ] a n d [ J e r r y ] e n tere d i n to an ag ree m e n t w i th [ D ani el l e’ s] m ot herRi t a Sot o L ang an d he rhus ban d Pa ul La ng. T h e a g ree m e n t w a s fo r M r. a n d M rs. La n g to p a ythe fi n a l m a tu ri ty paym enton t he r anch pr opert y i n A ugu stof20 00 , and [ D ani el l e] and [ Jer ry] w oul d t hen pa y M r . an d M r s. La ng. The L ang s m adet w o pa ym ent s i n Augustof2000 , onef or $50 , 000 . 00 on A ugus t 8, 200 0, and t he[ n] onef or$62, 000 . 00 on Augu s t25, 2000 . [ D ani el l e] an d [ Jer ry] m adepa ym ent s t o M r . A nd M r s. La ng. In 2 0 0 2 , t he La ngsatt em pt ed t o ha ve a Pr om i ss ory Not e i n t he a m o u n t of $ 1 1 2 ,0 0 0 .0 0 a n d se c u red b ythe ran c h p rop e rt y exe cut ed by [ D ani el l e] an d [ Jer ry] . [ D ani el l e] di d s i gn t he pr om i ss ory no t e o n M ay 6, 2002 , how eve r , [ Jer ry] di d nots i gn. O n A p ri l 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , th e La n g s e x e c u ted a d o c u m e n t pu rpo rt i n g to conveya gi f tsol el y t o [ D ani el l e ] th e bal ance oft he pr opert y l oan of$51, 097 . 24. The sa m e d ocu m ental so pur port s t o a ck now l edg e a gi f t t o [ Dan i e l l e ] on Augu s t 8, 2000, f ort heo r i gi na l $50, 000. 00 paym entm ade by t he Langs.3

B e c a u se the p rop e r ty w a s o ri g i n a l l yp u rch a se d as co m m u n i ty pr ope rt y and t he su bs equ ent l oan w as a deb tofbot h pa rt i es [ , ] t he c o u rtfi n d s th a t an yforg i v e n e ss o f d e b t b e n e fi tted th e co m m u n i ty e s t a t e [ , ] a nd [ Dan i e l l e ] h a sn o c l a i m f ors e pa r a t e p r op e rty r ei m bur sem entf r om t he com m uni t y est at e. T h e co u rt fi n d s th a t [ D a n i e l l e ] d o e s n o t ha v e a s e p a rate p rop e rt y c l a i m i n th e [ra n c h p ro p e rty ]. The t r i al co urten t er ed con cl us i ons of l aw , w hi ch i ncl ude d i n part t he f ol l ow i ng: B e c a u se the ran c h p rop e rt y w a s o ri g i n a l l yp u rch a se d as co m m u n i ty pr ope rt y a nd t he su bs equ entl oan by t he La ngsw asa deb toft he com m uni t y es t at e, t he cou rt con cl ude s as a m att erofl aw t hatan y fo rgive n e ss o f de b t bythe L a n g s b e n e fi ted th e c o m m u n i ty e sta te and [ D ani el l e] ha s no c l ai m f o r s e p ar at e p r ope rt y r ei m bur se m ent f r om t he com m uni t y e st at e i n r ega r dst o t he r anc h pr ope rt y. D ani el l e a p p e a l e d a n d c h a l l e n g e d t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s f i n d i n g s o f f a c tan d
c o n c lu s io n so fla w p r o v id in g t h a ts h e d id n o th a v e a s e p a r a t e p r o p e rt yc la im in th e ra n c h p ro p e rty . S ee W i l l i am s v. W

i l l i am s , No. 02- 06- 00143

- CV , 2007 W L 7 9 6 9 8 , a t * 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h J a n . 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ) (m e m . o p .). In
o u r m e m o ran d u m o p i n i o n , w e rea so n e d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts di scr et i on w i t h r egar d t o i t s deni al ofD ani el l e’ s separ at e pr opert y cl ai m based
o n th e $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 c h e c kth a t th e L a n g si s s u e d o n A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 0 . Id . a t*4–5 . H ow eve r , w e r eve r se d t he t r i al cou rt ’ s j udgm entast o t he pr ope rt y di vi si on a nd
rem a n d e d the ca se to th e tr i a l co u rtto re -di v i d e the p a rt i e s’ co m m u n i ty e sta te b e c a u se the tr i a l co u rterr e d b y c h a rac teri zi n g the La n g s’ $ 5 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4g i ft to4

D a n i e l l e o ft her e m a i ni ng b a l a nc e o ft her a nc h pr op e rt y l oa n a sc om m uni ty p ro p e rty . Id . a t*5–7 . O n re m a n d , th e tri a l c o u rt c o n d u c te d a “ R e h e a ri n g o n P ro p e rtyIss u e s ,” i n w hi ch i tt ookj udi ci al not i ce of “e veryt hi ng t hat w asad m i t t ed i n t he pr evi ous t r i al . ” O n O ct ober15 , 20 07 , t he t r i al courtsi gned a f i nal decr ee ofdi vor ce, a n d it l a ter en tere d fi n d i n g s o f f a c t an d co n c l u sion s o f l a w . A s p a rto f i ts p rop e rt yd i v i sion , th e tr i a l co u rtaw a rde d D a n i e l l e a $ 1 0 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4se p a rate pr opert y i nt er esti n t he r anch pr operty , f i ndi ng t hatshe, “by gi ft s f r om her
m ot herand st epf at her , acqui r ed a $1 01 , 09 7. 24 separ at e pr opert y cl ai m agai nst t he R anch P r opert y, donati ve i nt enton t he partoft he Langs havi ng been evi denced overa yearbef or e t he di vor ce w as even f i l ed. ” N ow Jer ry appeal s. II I. P RO P ER TYD I V I S I ON A . 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 e st 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. 001 ( V er non 2006); M o ro c h v. Col l i ns , 174 S . W . 3d 849, 855 ( Tex. A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d e n i e d ). T h e co u rth a s b roa d d i sc reti o n i n m a k i n g i ts j us tan d r i ghtdi vi si on, an d a bs enta 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, 6 7 S .W .3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.).5

To determ i n e 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 h e r th e tri alco urtac t ed w i t houtr ef er enc e t o a ny g ui di ng r ul esor pr i nci pl es ; i n ot h e r w o rd s, 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 . D owner v. A quam a r

i ne Operators, I

nc. , 701 S. W . 2d 238, 2 4 1

– 4 2 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ), cert. denied, 4 7 6 U .S . 1 1 5 9 (1 9 8 6 ). Fi ndi ngs off actent er ed i n a case t r i ed t o t he courthave t he sam e f or ce a n d d i g n i ty a s a j u ry ’sa n s w e rsto j u ryq u e s ti o n s . A nderson v. City of Seven Po i n ts , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ). T h e tri a l c o u rt’sfi n d i n g so f fa c t a re r evi ew abl e f orl ega l an d f ac t ual su f f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upportt hem by th e s a m e s ta n d a rd sth a t a re a p p l i e d i n re v i e w i n g e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g a j u ry ’s
a n s w e r. O r

itz v. Jones , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); Catal i na v. Bl asdel, 8 8 1 S .W .2 d 2 9 5 , 2 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ). I n f am i l y l aw ca se s, how eve r , th e tra di t i ona l s uf f i ci enc y s t and ar d of
r evi ew over l aps w i t h t he abuse of di scr et i on st andar d ofr evi ew ; t her ef or e, l egal and f ac t ual i ns uf f i ci enc y ar e noti nde pen den tgr oundsofer r orbutar e r el eva nt fa c to rsi n o u r a s s e s s m e n t o f w h e th e r 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 . Boyd
v. Boyd, 131 S. W . 3d 605 , 611 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 4, no p e t.). A cc or di ngl y, t o det er m i ne w het her t her e has bee n an abu seo f di sc r et i on because t he evi dence i s l egal l y orf act ual l y i nsuf f i ci entt o suppo rt t he t r i al
c o u rt’sd e c i s i o n , w e e n g a g e i n a tw o -p ro n g e d i n q u i r y : (1 ) d i d th e tri a l c o u rt6

hav e su f f i ci ent evi den ce upon w hi ch t o e xer ci sei t s di sc r et i on, an d ( 2) di d t he t r i al court er r i n i t s appl i cat i on of t hatdi scr et i on? Id .; Moroch , 17 4 S . W . 3d at 85 7. Th e appl i cabl e suf f i ci ency r evi ew com es i nt o pl ay w i t h r egar d t o t he f i r st q u e s ti o n . Boyd, 131 S. W . 3d at 611 . W e t hen de t er m i ne w het her , ba se d on th e e l i c i te d e v i d e n c e , th e tri a l c o u rt m a d ea re a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n . Id . A part y w ho seeks t o assertt he separ at e c har act erofpr opert y m ust pr ovet hatch ar ac t erby cl ea ran d con vi nci ng evi den ce . Tex. Fa m . Code Ann. § 3. 003 ( b) ( V er non 2006) . Cl ea r and co nvi nci ng e vi den cei s t hatm ea su r e o r deg r eeofpr ooft hatw i l l pr oduc e i n t he m i nd oft he t r i eroff ac ta f i r m be l i efor con vi ct i on a s t o t he t r ut h oft he al l ega t i onss oughtt o bees t abl i sh ed. Tex . Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem . Code Ann § 41 . 001 ( 2) ( V er non 2008) ; Tex. Fa m . Code Ann. § 1 0 1 .0 0 7 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ); Transp. I ns. Co. v. Mor

i el, 879 S. W . 2d 10, 31 ( Tex. 1 9 9 4 ). T h i si n te rm e d i a te s ta n d a rd fa l l sb e tw e e n th e p re p o n d e ra n c e s ta n d a rd ofci vi l pr oceedi ngs and t he r easonabl e dou bt st andar d of cr i m i nal pr oceedi ngs. I nreG . M. , 5 9 6 S .W .2 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 7 (T e x . 1 9 8 0 ); State v. A ddi ngton , 588 S . W . 2d 56 9, 5 7 0 (T ex. 19 79 ) . W hi l e t he pr oof m ustw ei gh heav i ert han
m er el y t he gr eat erw ei ght oft he cr edi bl e evi dence, t her e i s no r equi r em entt hat th e e v i d e n c e b e u n e q u i v o c a l o r u n d i s p u te d . A ddi ngton , 588 S. W . 2d a t570. I n r e v i e wi n g t h e e v i d e n c e f o rl e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y , we mu s td e t er m i ne
w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i ss u c h th a t a fa c tfin d e r c o u l d re a s o n a b l yfo rm a fi rm7

b e l i e f o r c o n v i c ti o n th a t i ts fi n d i n g w a stru e . D i am ond Sham rockRef . Co. , L. P.
v. Ha ll, 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 1 6 4 , 1 7 0 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ); S w. Bel l T el. Co. v. Garza , 164 S. W . 3d 607, 627 ( Tex. 2004 ) . W e m u s t r evi ew al l t he evi den cei n t he l i ght
m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e fi n d i n g . Ha ll, 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 1 7 0 ; Garza , 164 S. W . 3d at627. Thi s m ea nst hatw e m u s t as su m e t hatt he f ac t f i nde rr es ol ved an y di sp ut ed f ac t s i n f avo r of i t s f i ndi ng i f a r ea so nab l e f ac t f i nde rco ul d ha ve done
s o . Ha ll, 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 1 7 0 ; Garza , 1 6 4S . W . 3 d a t6 2 7 . W e mu s tal so d i s re g a rd a l l e v i d e n c e th a t a re a s o n a b l e fa c tfin d e r c o u l d h a v e d i s b e l i e v e d . Ha ll, 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 1 7 0 ; Garza , 1 6 4 S .W .3 d a t 6 2 7 . W e m u s t c o n s i d e r, h o w e v e r, u n d i s p u te d e v i d e n c e e v e n i f i t i sc o n tra ryto th e fi n d i n g . City o f Kel ler v. W i l son , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 1 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ); Ha ll, 16 8 S . W . 3d at 17 0. Th ati s,
w e m ustconsi derevi dence f a v o ra bl e t o t he f i ndi ng i fa r easonabl e f act f i nder
c o u ld a n d d is r e g a r d e v id e n c e c o n t r a ryt o t h e f in d in g u n le s sa re a s o n a b le fa c tfin d e r c o u l d n o t. W i l son , 168 S. W . 3d a t827. B . M i sc h a rac teri za ti o n o f C o m m u n ity P rop e rty I n hi s f i r st i ssue, Jer ry chal l enges t he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ng t hatD ani el l e has
a $ 1 0 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4se p a rate p rop e rt yi n tere st i n th e ran c h p rop e rt y . H e se e m s to
c o n ten d tha t D a n i e l l e fai l e d to m e e t h e r b u rde n o f p rov i n g th e se p a rate p rop e rt y2 ... W e const r ue hi s ar gum entas s peci f i cal l y chal l engi ng t he l egal

suf f i c i e nc y oft hee vi de nc e t o s up po rtt het r i a l c ou rt ’ ss e pa r a t e p r op e rt y det er m i nat i on. 8 char act er of t he r anch pr opert y by cl earand conv i nci ng evi dence. 2 Jer ry al so c h a l l e n g e s th e c h a r a c t e ri za ti o n o f P fl a m e n c o , a h o rse , a s D a n i e l l e ’s se p a rate pr ope rt y. P r o p e rt yp o s s e s s e d b y e it h e r s p o u s e a tt h e d is s o lu t io n o ft h e m a r r ia g e is p res u m e d to b e co m m u n i ty p rop e rt y , a b se n t cl e a r an d co n v i n c i n g ev i d e n c e to th e c o n tra ry . T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 3 .0 0 3 ; Boyd, 1 3 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 1 2 . In
or dert o ov er com e t he com m uni t y pr ope rt y pr es um pt i on, t he bur den i s on t he sp ous e c l ai m i ng c e rt ai n pr ope rt y a s se par at e t o t r ac e a nd c l ea r l y i den t i f y t he p ro p e rty c l a i m e d to b e s e p a ra te . Boyd, 1 3 1 S .W .3 d a t6 1 2 . T r a c in g m e r e ly i nvol ves est abl i shi ng t he separ at e or i gi n of t he pr opert y t hr oug h e v i dence show i ng t he t i m e and m eans by w hi ch t he spouse or i gi nal l y obtai ned p o s s e s s i o n o f th e p ro p e rty . Id . P r o p e rt ya c q u ir e d b y g if t d u r in g m a r r ia g e isc o n s t it u t io n a llya n d s t a t u t o r ily d e fi n e d a s s e p a ra te p ro p e rty . S ee Tex. C ons t . art . X V I , § 15; Tex. Fa m . Code A nn. § 3. 001 . A gi fti s a v ol unt ary t r ans f erofpr ope rt y t o a not herm ade g ra tu i to u s l ya n d w i th o u t c o n s i d e ra ti o n . Hi l ley v. Hi

l ley , 161 Te x. 569, 342 S .W .2 d 5 6 5 , 5 6 9 (1 9 6 1 ); Ro b erts v. Ro b erts , 999 S . W . 2d 424, 432 ( Tex.9

A pp. — El Pas o 1999, no p et . ) . Thr eeel em ent s ar e r equ i r ed t o e s t abl i sh t he exi st enc e o fa gi f t : ( 1) i nt entt o m ak e a gi ft ; ( 2) de l i v e ry oft he pr ope rt y; an d (3 ) a c c e p ta n c e o f th e p ro p e rty . Ro b erts , 9 9 9 S .W .2 d a t 4 3 2 ; W illia m s , 2007 W L 79698, at* 4 . T h e d o n or ’ s i nt enti s t he pr i nci pali ss ue i n de t er m i ni ng
w h e th e r a g i ft h a s b e e n m a d e . S e eHa yesv. Ri n eh a rt, 65 S . W . 3d 286, 289 ( Tex. A pp. — Eas t l and 200 1, no pe t . ) . The per so n c l ai m i ng t hata gi ftw asm ade
m u s t p ro v e th e g i ft b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . Id . A t r i alco urtha s no a u th o ri tyto d i v e s t a s p o u s e ’si n te re s t i n s e p a ra te p ro p e rty . Cam eron v. Cam eron , 6 4 1 S .W .2 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 3 (T e x . 1 9 8 2 ).

1 . R a n c h P rop e rty I n ourf i r st m em or and um opi ni on, w e det ai l ed t he evi den cede m ons t r at i ng th a t t h e La n g s’ d is c h a r g e o f t h e $ 5 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4rem a i n i n g d e b t w a s a g i ft to D a n i e l l e a n d , a c c o rd i n g l y , h e r s e p a ra te p ro p e rty . S ee W i l l i am s, 2 0 0 7 WL 796 98, at*5–6 . W e s t at ed i n pa rtt he f ol l ow i ng: [ M r s. Lang] t est i f i ed t hat , w i t h r egar d t o t he $6 2, 00 0 check, i tw as he ri nt e nt i on a tt het i m e t ha t i t w o u l d b e r e pa i d. On Apr i l 19, 2 0 0 4 , th e La n g s sign e d a d o c u m e n t w h i c h sta ted , “W e h e reb yg i ft t he bal ance oft he pr opert y l o a n ($ 51 , 09 7. 24 ) f or[ t he R anch P r o p e rt y ] t o [D a n ie lle ]. ” [M r s . L a n g ] t e s t if ie d t h a ts h e p r e p a r e d t h is d o c u m e n t. S h e also tes ti fi e d tha t he r i n ten t w a s th a t i t b e a g i ft to herda ught eran d nott o [J e rry ] . W hen as ke d t he r ea so n f ort he gi f t , [ M r s. La n g ] t est i f i ed t hati tw as because [ D ani el l e] w as st r ugg l i ng w i t h ot herbi l l s and “w e j ustw an te d to d o i tf orher s a k e .”10

Th e t r i al court ’ s concl usi on of l aw , t hatt he Langs m ade a l oan t hat const i t ut ed com m uni t y debt, w as cor r ect , because i tw as a l oan m ade t o t he part i e s dur i ng m ar r i age. H ow ever , because f or gi ven es s ofd e b tca n c ons t i t ut e a gi ft , an d be ca us e t he t es t i m ony and t he 200 4 doc um ent dem ons t r at ed i nt ent , de l i very, and acceptan c e o f t hi s gi ft , t her e w as l egal l y suf f i ci entevi dence t hatt he La ngsi nt end ed t o m ak e a gi ftt o [ D ani el l e] oft he fo rg i v e n e s so f th e $ 5 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4d e b t. . . . B e c a u s e t h e d is c h a r g e o f$ 5 1 ,0 9 7 . 2 4 w a sa g if tt o [D a n ie lle ], it w ashe rs epa r at e p r ope rt y. Id . ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A tt he r ehear i ng af t err em and, M r . Lang t est i f i ed t hat he i nt end ed t o m ak e a gi f t of t he ent i r e app r oxi m at el y $10 1, 000 ( con si st i ng of t he$51, 097. 24 d e btf or gi ve ne s sa nd t he $50, 000 c he c k i s s ue d on Aug us t8, 200 0) t o Dani el l e. O ur opi ni on i n t hi s app ea l i s unc han ged . W e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urtco ul d ha ve r ea so nab l y f or m ed a f i r m b e l i e f o r c onvi ct i on t hatt he La ngsgi f t ed t o Dani el l e a d i s c h a r ge oft he deb ton t he r anc h pr ope rt y i n t he
a m ou nto f$51, 097. 24. Tur ni ng t o t he A ugus t8, 2000 $ 50, 000 ch ec k, w e d et er m i ned i n our pr evi ous opi ni on t hatt he t r i al court coul d have r easonabl y f or m ed a f i r m bel i ef
orconvi ct i on t hatt he check w as notgr at ui t ous and, consequen t l y, t hatt he t r i al
cou rtd i d n o ta b u s e i t sd i s c r e t i o n “ wi t h r e g a r d t o i t sd e n i a l o f[ Da n i el l e’ s] separ at e pr opert y cl ai m base d o n th e $5 0, 00 0 ch eck. ” Id . a t* 4

– 5 . As
m ent i oned above, how ever , atth e re h ear i ng af t err em and, M r . Lang t est i f i ed t h a tt h e e n t ir e $ 1 0 1 ,0 0 0 w a sa g if tt o D a n ie lle . H e w a s u n w a v e r in g in h is11

t es t i m ony r ega r di ng t he $10 1, 000 gi ft des pi t e oppos i ng cou ns el ’s q u e st i ons abou tt he pr om i ssory note th a t D a ni el l e si gned i n 2 00 2. M or eover , unl i ke at t he f i r stf i nal hear i ng, M r. Lang addi t i onal l y t est i f i ed t hathe f i l ed a gi ftt ax r e t ur n w i t h t he I nt e r na l Re ve nu e Se rvi c e i n 2002 i n t hea m ou nto f$101 , 000. M r . Lang l i st ed D ani el l e as t he don ee. Th e t r i al courtt ook j udi ci al not i ce t hat D ani el l e f i l ed herdi vor ce pet i t i on i n 2 00 4, aft erM r . Lang f i l ed th e gi ftt ax r et ur n. Jer ry ar gues t hatD ani el l e f ai l ed t o m e etherbur den of pr ovi ng her
se par at e p r ope rt y i nt er es ti n th e r anc h pr ope rt y be ca us e t he t es t i m ony of D ani el l e a nd t he L a n g s i s unc or r obor at ed. The t es t i m ony ofD ani el l e a nd t he Langs i s notuncor r obo r at ed. D ani el l e’ s exhi bi t f our adm i t t ed att he f i r stf i nal hear i ng i s a copy of t he $5 0, 00 0 check w r i t t en t o t he r anch pr opert y’ s or i gi nal
ow neron A ugu st 8, 20 00 . Th e r anch pr opert y’ s nam e and “gi ft t o D ani el l e”
a r e w r i t t e n i n t hem e m o p o rt i on o ft hec he c k . And t heApr i l 19, 2004 d o c u m e n tin w h ic h t h e L a n g s g if t e d t o D a n ie lle $ 5 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4 , D a n ie lle ’s e x h ib it six a t t h e fi rst f in a l h e a ri n g , sta tes tha t t h e La n g s “ a l so g i fted $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 to Dan i e l l e ” o n Augu s t8, 2000 . C o n side ri n g the ev id e n c e i n the fi rst f i n a l h e a ri n g , w h i c h i n c l u d e d b o th D ani el l e’ s and M r s. La ng’ s t es t i m ony t hat t he $50 , 000 ch ec k w asa gi ft , an d th e e v i d e n c e a t th e h e a ri n g a fte r re m a n d , i n c l u d i n g M r. L a n g ’sg i ft ta xre tu rn12

and hi s une qui voc alt es t i m ony t hathei nt end ed to m a k e a gi ftt o Dani el l e o f $50 , 000 i n August2000 , w e h ol d t hatt he t r i alco u rt cou l d now ha ve rea so n a b l yform e d a fi rm b e l i e f o r c o n v i c ti o n th a t D a n i e l l e ac q u i red a s e p a rate p ro p e rtyi n te r e s t i n t h e ra n c h p ro p e rtyi n th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 0 1 ,0 9 7 .2 4 . S ee Ha ll, 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 1 7 0 ; Ro b erts , 99 9 S . W . 2d at 43 2. A ccor di ngl y, t he t r i al
c ou rtd i d no t a bu s e i t s di s c r e t i on b y f i nd i ng t ha tDan i e l l e h a d a $101 , 097. 24
se par at e p r ope rt y i nte re s t i n the r anc h pr ope rt y. W e o ver r ul e t hi s partof Jer ry’ s f i r sti ssue.

2. Pf l am enco t he H or se Jer ry addi t i onal l y ar gues t hat t he t r i al court m i schar act er i zed Pf l am enco a s D a n ie l l e ’s se p a rate p rop e rt y . H e co n ten d s th a t P fl a m e n c o i s c o m m u n i ty pr opert y because t he hor se w as bor n dur i ng t he m ar r i age. O f f s p r i n g b o r n t o c a t t l e d u r i n g ma r r i a g e a r e c o mmu n i t yp r o p e rt y. G uti er rez v. G uti

er rez , 7 9 1 S .W .2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 4

– 6 5 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n t o n io 1 9 9 0 , n o w ri t); Blum v. Li ght, 8 1 T e x . 4 1 4 , 1 6 S .W . 1 0 9 0 (1 8 9 1 ); see al so A l senzv. A l

senz , 101 S. W . 3d 648, 653 ( Te x. App.

— Hous t on [ 1s t Di s t . ] 2003 , p e t . d e n ie d ) ( r e a s o n in g t h a tin c o m e p r o d u c e d f r o m s e p a r a t e p r o p e rt yis gen er al l y c ons i dered com m uni t y pr ope rt y, r ega r dl es s oft he nat ur e o ft he
se par at e p r ope rt y ge ner at i ng i nco m e, i ncl udi ng s t ock , sh ar esi n a co r por at i on, l ivestock , o r o th e r a s s e ts ). T h i si ss o e v e n i f t h e o ffs p ri n g s ’ p a re n ts a re13

s e p a ra te p ro p e rty . G uti er rez , 7 9 1 S .W .2 d a t 6 6 4

– 6 5 . O ffsp ri n g fr o m se p a rate p rop e rt yh o rse s b o rn d u ri n g m a rr i a g e h a v e l i k e w i se b e e n h e l d to b e co m m u n i ty p ro p e rty . S ee A very v. Popper, 9 2 T e x . 3 3 7 , 4 8 S .W . 5 7 2 , 5 7 3 (1 8 9 8 ); Ba tema nv. Ba tem an , 2 5 T e x . 2 7 0 , a t * 1 ( 1 8 6 0 ) (“T h e w i fe h a d se p a rate pr opert y consi st i ng i n part of cat t l e and hor ses. Th e decr ee ofpart i t i on gi ves to h e r th e i n c re a s e , d u ri n g th e m a rri a g e , o f th e s a i d c a ttle a n d h o rs e sa sp a rt
o fh e rs e p a r a t e e s t a t e . In t h is t h e r e w a se r r o ra sith a sb e e n d e t e r m in e d b yt h is
c o u rt.” ). D a n i e l l e o p i n e d d u ri n g h e r t e sti m o n ytha t P fl a m e n c o w a s h e r se p a rate pr opert y, butshe agr eed t hatPf l am enco w as bor n d u rin g t he m ar r i age. B e c a u se P fl a m e n c o w a s b o rn d u ri n g the m a rr i a g e , th e h o rse i s c o m m u n i ty p ro p e rty , n o t s e p a ra te p ro p e rty . S e eA very , 4 8 S .W . a t 5 7 3 ; Batem an , 25 Tex.
a t*1. A l th o u g h the tr i a l co u rtch a r a c teri ze d P fl a m e n c o as D a n i e l l e ’s se p a rate p rop e rt y , m e re m i sc h a rac teri za ti o n o f co m m u n i ty p rop e rt y a s s e p a rate p rop e rt y d o e s n o t re q u i re re v e rs a l . Boyd, 1 3 1 S .W . 3 d a t 6 1 7 ; se e al soV i ckery v. V i ckery , 99 9 S . W . 2d 34 2, 37 0 ( Tex . 19 99 ) . I ft he m i schar act er i za t i on has onl y a de m i ni m us ef f ect on t he t r i al court ’ s di vi si on of t he com m uni t y est at e, th e n th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n . Boyd, 131 S. W . 3d a t617.3 ... D ani el l e i ns t ea d e nt er ed i nt o e vi den ceatt he f i r sthe ar i ng a doc um ent

e n ti tl e d “ B r e a k d o w n o f A s s e ts a n d L i a b i l i ti e s ,”a s u m m a ryo f h e r a n d J e rry ’s as se t s and l i abi l i t i es . Thi s exh i bi tdoe s notl i sta part i cul ar val ue f orPf l am enc o. Jer ry’ s i nventory and app r ai sem ent w as not adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence at t he f i r st fi n a l h e a ri n g e i th e r. 14 Jer ry c ont end s t hat Pf l am enc o i s w ort h $2, 000 , butt hi s f i gur e i s f ound i n D a n i e l l e ’s i n v e n to ry a n d ap p rai se m e n t, w h i c h sh e fi l e d b u t did n o t en ter i n to evi dence at ei t her t he f i r st or second f i nal hear i ngs. 3 Beca us e D ani el l e d i d not ent erhe ri nve nt ory a nd a ppra i s e m enti nt o e vi den ce , w e c ann otr el y on t he
v a l u e s e t fo rt h t h e r e i n a se v i d e n c e o f P fl a m e n c o ’sv a l u e . See Ba r nard v. Barn a rd, 133 S . W . 3d 782, 789 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2004, pe t . de ni ed) (ho l d i n g tha t un l e ss a p a rt y ’s i n v e n to ry a n d ap p rai sa l h a s b e e n ad m i tted i n to evi den ce , i tm ay notbe con si der ed as evi den ceofa pr ope rt y’ s cha r ac t er i z at i on o f v a l u e ); s e e a l

s o InreC.A .N.M . , No. 02- 04- 00200

- CV , 2005 W L1356 443, at*3 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h Jun . 9, 20 05 , no pet . ) ( m em . op. ) ( st at i ng t hat
a c ourtm ay nott ak e j udi ci alnot i ceoft he t r ut h of m att er s i n a f i l ed doc um ent unl es s th e d ocu m entha s bee n a dm i t t ed i nt o e vi den ce ) . Nei t herD ani el l e n or J e rryp ro d u c e d a n y e v i d e n c e o f P fl a m e n c o ’s v a l u e . C o n s e q u e n tl y , th e re c o rd does not dem onst r at e t hat t he t r i al court ’ s m i schar act er i zat i on of Pf l am enco as D ani el l e’ s separ at e pr operty h ad m or e t han a de m i ni m us ef f ecton t he t r i al15

c o u rt’sd i v i s i o n o f th e c o m m u n i tye s ta te . See Boyd, 131 S. W . 3d a t617. A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e t he r em ai nderofJer ry’ s f i r sti ssue.16

C . M i sc h a rac teri za ti o n o f S e p a rateP rop e rty I n hi s se con d i ss ue, Je r ry a r g u est hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by
m i schar act er i zi ng som e ofhi s separ at e pr opert y— a t able s a w , a t abl e saw s t a n d , a we s t e r n s a d d l e , a n d a c u t t i n g t o r c h

— a sc o mm u n i t yp r o p e rt y . He contends t hatt hese i t em s w er e l i st ed as hi s separ at e pr opert y i n t he t r i al
c o u rt ’s 2 0 0 6 fi n d i n g s o f fac t, th a t th e y a re n o t l i ste d a s h i s s e p a rate p rop e rt y i n th e tri a l c o u rt’s2 0 0 7 fi n d i n g so f fa c t, a n d th a tth e y“ a re s ti l l i n D a n i e l l e ’s pos se ss i on a nd a s su ch w oul d bec om e her pr ope rt y as sh e i s aw ar ded al l oft he i t em s i n herpossessi on un dert he” di vor ce decr ee. W e di sagr ee. Th e t r i al court ’ s 20 06 f i ndi ngs off actco nt ai ned a det ai l ed “C har a c t e r i z a t i o n a n d Va l u a t i o n o ft h e P a rt i e s [ ‘ ] As s e t sa n d De b t s ” t h a tset f ort h t he val ue and a des cr i pt i on ofJe r ry’ s and D ani el l e’ s co m m uni t y a nd
s e p a ra te p ro p e rty a s s e ts . It l i s ts th e ta b l e s a w , ta b l e s a w s t a n d , w e s te rn s a d d le , a nd cutt i ng t or ch as Jer ry’ s separ at e pr opert y. A ft ert he f i r stappeal
a n d rem a n d , th e tr i a l co u rt c o n d u c ted an o th e r f i n a l h e a ri n g o n the p rop e rt y di vi si on, si gned t he f i nal decr ee ofdi vor ce, and ent er ed ne w fin di ngs off act and co ncl us i onsofl aw . U nl i ke t he 200 6 f i ndi ngsoff ac t , t he 200 7 f i ndi ngsdo nots pec i f i ca l l y l i stt he t abl e sa w , t abl e s aw s t and , w es t er n s add l e, an d c utt i ng t or ch as Jer ry’ s separ at e pr opert y. Th i s, how ever , does not m ean t hatt he t r i al17

c o u rtm i sc h a rac teri ze d the i tem s a s c o m m u n i ty p rop e rt y , i n c l u d i n g the m i n i ts di vi si on of t he com m uni t y est at e. T h e d iv o r c e d e c r e e a w a r d sJ e r rya sh is s e p a r a t e p r o p e rt ya ll h o u s e h o ld f u r n it u r e , f u r n is h in g s , f ix t u r e s , g o o d s , a p p lia n c e s , a n d e q u ip m e n tin h is p o s s e s s io n a n d lik e w is e a w a r d sD a n ie lle a sh e rs e p a r a t e p r o p e rt ya ll h o u s e h o ld fu rn itur e, f ur ni shi ngs, f i xt ur es, good s, appl i ances, and equi pm enti n her p o s s e s s io n . A lt h o u g h J e r ryc o n t e n d st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtu n c o n s t it u t io n a lly di v e s te d h i m oft he t abl e s aw , t abl e s aw s t and , w es t er n s add l e, an d c utt i ng t or ch bec aus e t h e i t em s ar e i n Dani el l e’ s pos se ss i on, t her e i s not hi ng i n t he
re c o rd to s h o w th a t th e i te m sa re i n D a n i e l l e ’sp o s s e s s i o n . S e eg en era l lyInre A . W. P. , 20 0 S . W . 3d 24 2, 24 4 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 20 06 , no pet . ) ( st at i ng t hat st at em ent s i n a br i eft hatar e not suppo rt ed by t he r ecor d w i l l notbe consi der ed
o n a p p e a l ); se e al

so T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (h) ( req u i ri n g ap p rop ri a te c i tati o n s to t he r ecor d) . W i t hou tany e v idence ot her w i se, t he i t em s coul d have been
aw ar ded t o Jer ry as hi s sep a ra te pr opert y und ert he pr ovi si on i n t he decr ee aw ar di ng J e rry th e pr ope rt y i n hi s pos se ss i on. Conse que nt l y, Je r ry ha s not d e m o n strate d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rterro n e o u sly m i sc h a rac teri ze d h i s s e p a rate pr opert y as com m uni t y pr opert y. W e over r ul e Jer ry’ s second i ssue.18

D . Jus tan d Ri ghtD i vi si on In h is f o u rt h is s u e , J e r ry g e n e r a l l ya r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rta r b it r a r ily and unr ea so nab l y di sp r oport i ona t el y di vi ded t he com m uni t y e st at e. Chal l eng i ng t he t r i al court ’ s f i nding of Dan i el l e’ s separ at e pr opert y i nt er esti n t he r anch p r o p e rt y , h e s e e m st o c o n t e n d t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t io n in d i v i d i n g the co m m u n i ty e sta te b e c a u se th e e v 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 pportt he di vi si on. A n assert i on t hatt he evi dence i s f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppo rta f act f i ndi ng m ea nst hatt he evi den ces upport i ng t he f i ndi ng i s so w ea k o rt he evi dence t o t he c o n t r ar y i s so over w hel m i ng 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 . Gar za v. A lvi

ar, 3 9 5 S. W . 2d 821, 823 ( Tex. 1 9 6 5 ) . T o t h e e x t e n tt h a tJ e r ryh a d t heb u r d e n o fp r o o fo n t h e ma t t e r , we m us tco ns i deran d w ei gh al l of t he evi den ce and se t as i de t he f i ndi ng on l y i ft he evi den cei s so w ea k o rt he f i ndi ng i s s o c ont r ary t o t he gr ea tw ei ghtan d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e a s to b e c l e a rl yw ro n g a n d u n j u s t. D o w Ch em. Co . v. F ra n cis , 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ); I n re K i ng ’s E sta te , 150 Tex. 6 6 2 , 2 4 4S .W .2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 1 (1 9 5 1 ). A s st at ed abo ve, an i ns uf f i ci enc y i ss ue i s not an i nde pen den tgr ound of
er r or but a r el evant f act or i n our asses sm ent of w het hert he t r i al j udg e abused h i s d i s c re ti o n . Boyd, 131 S . W . 3d at611. I n m ak i ng i t s j us tan d r i ghtdi vi si on19

oft he com m uni t y pr ope rt y, t he t r i al cou rt m ay al so con si ders uch f ac t or s ast he spous e s ’ capaci t i es and abi l i t i es, i ncl udi ng ear ni ng capaci t y; busi ness op p o rtu n i ti e s ; e d u c a ti o n ; re l a ti v e p h y s i c a l c o n d i ti o n s ; re l a ti v e fi n a n c i a l c o ndit i on and obl i gat i ons ; di sp ari ty o fag es ; s i z e o fs epa r at e e st at es ; an d t he nat ur e o f th e c o m m u n i typ ro p e rty . Murf f, 6 1 5 S .W .2 d at 6 9 9 . T h e co m p l a i n i n g p a rt y has t he bur den of pr ovi ng f r om t he r ecor d t hatt he di vi si on w as so unj ustt hat 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 . Todd v. Todd, 173 S . W . 3d 126, 129 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d e n i e d ). Th e e vi de nc e de m on s t r a t e s t ha t Je r ry a nd Dan i e l l e m a r r i e d i n 1 996. D ani el l e’ s and Jer ry’ s t est i m ony co nsi st s i n r el evantpartas f ol l ow s: •The r anch pr opert y, w hi ch i s val ued at$1 52 , 00 0, consi st s ofj ust u n d e r t w e l v e ac res an d i n c l u d e s a b a rn, an effi c i e n c yap a rt m e n t, and a f ew hor se st al l s.

• D a n ie lle h a s a s e p a r a t e p r o p e rt y in t e r e s t in t h e ra n c h p r o p e rt yin t hea m ou nto f$101 , 000. •Jer ry and D ani el l e had a j oi ntchecki ng accou nt , butt he bal ance a tt het i m eo ft hef i r s tt r i a l w a s$0. •J er ry a nd Dani el l e p ur c h a se d a 1994 F350 t r uckdur i ng t he m ar r i aget hatha s a v al ue of$5, 700 an d i s i n Je r ry’ s pos se ss i on. •Theyal so pur chased a Joh n D e e r T r act ordur i ng t he m ar r i age. $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 rem a i n s d u e , a n d D a n i e l l e i s i n p o ss e ss i o n o f i t. •J er ry ow nsa Jee p a s hi s se par at e p r ope rt y.20

•D ani el l e has t w o 4 01

- K s: one val ued at$2 0, 11 6. 88 and another v a lu e d a t$ 2 ,4 1 7 .2 5 . D a n ie lle o w e s a p p r o x im a t e ly$ 1 3 ,0 0 0 in l oans t aken agai nstt he 4 01

- K w i t h a gr eat erval ue. •Jer ry and D ani el l e ar e ow ed $ 75 , 00 0 fr om G r eg M or r i s.

• Fu r ni t ur e i n t hea pa rt m e nti sv a l ue d a ta pp r ox i m a t e l y $450.

• J e rryh a si n h i sp o s s e s s i o n s o m e c h i n a , a s m a l l re fri g e ra to r, a m i cr ow ave, and a f ew ol dercom puter s. •D a n i e l l e h a s t w o l i th o g rap h foxp ri n ts, va ri o u s h o rse eq u i p m e n t, and a han dgun. •Jer ry has hor se equi pm entand ot herguns. •D a ni e l l e h a sf ou rc om m un i t y ho r s e si n he rp os s e s s i on w orth $4, 000 , $15, 000 , $800 , an d $8, 000 . Jer ry has a hor sei n Fl or i da and a one - hal fi nt er es ti n a f i l l y. Dani el l e s ai d Je r ry c an hav e t he t w o c ow s t hatt heyow n.

• J e r r y h a s a p e n d i n g w o rke r’ s c o m p e n sa ti o n clai m w o rt h u p to $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , a c c o rding to D a n i e l l e a t th e fi rst he a ri n g . A c c o rding to Je r ry a tt hes e c on d he a r i ng , her e c ov e r e d a pp r ox i m a t e l y $4, 200 u n d e rt h e c l a i m. •Dani el l e h ascr edi tca r dsi n he rna m e w i t h ba l anc est ot al i ng $20, 800, $15, 000, $11, 000, $500 , $5, 000, a nd $4, 000. Ther e w asl i t t l e, i fan y, te st i m ony r ega r di ng t he part i es ’ r es pec t i ve ea r ni ng capaci t i es, busi ness opport uni t i es, educat i on, physi cal cond i t i ons, and f i nanci al
c o n d i ti o n s a n d o b l i g a ti o n s. T h e tes ti m o n yi n ste a d foc u se d p ri m a ri l yo n p rop e rt y and val ues.21

A f t eraccounti ng f orD ani el l e’ s $1 01 , 09 7. 24 separ at e pr opert y i nt er est in t h e r a n c h p r o p e rt y , t h e t r ia l c o u rte v e n lyd iv id e d b e t w e e n J e r rya n d D a n ie lle t he r em ai ni ng com m uni t y equi t y i n t he r anch pr opert y of$1 8, 40 1. 50 . The t r i al
c o u rt a w ar ded Je r ry t he pr ope rt y i n hi s pos se ss i on a nd a w ar ded D ani el l e t he pr opert y i n herpossessi on. D ani el l e i s r esponsi bl e f or t he debts i n hernam e, a n d J e rryi sre s p o n s i b l e fo r th e d e b ts i n h i s n a m e . T h e tri a l c o u rt a w a rd e d J e rry t he Je e p a s h i s se par at e p r ope rt y. At t ac hed t o t he f i ndi ngsoff ac tan d
c o n c l u sion s o f l a w i s a n e x h i b i t w i th a tab l e se tti n g forth the co m m u n i ty a ss e ts
a n d c o rre s p o n d i n g v a l u e s . J e rry ’sto ta l a s s e ts e q u a l $ 6 9 ,4 1 3 , a n d D a n i e l l e ’s t ot a l a s s e t se qu a l $60, 000. U n d e rt h e a p p r o p r ia t e s t a n d a r d o fre v ie w , w e h o ld t h a tt h e e v id e n c e is f a c t u a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e tri a l c o u rt’sc o m m u n i tyd i v i s i o n . See Dow Chem . Co. , 4 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 4 2 ; Garza , 3 9 5 S .W .2 d a t8 2 3 . C o n s id e r in g t h is f act or and ot her s, w e cannot say t hatJer ry has m ethi s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat th e d i v i s i o n w a ss o u n j u s t 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 . See Todd, 1 7 3 S .W . 3 d a t 1 2 9 ; Boyd, 1 3 1 S .W .3 d at 6 1 1 . W e o v e rr u l e J e rry ’s fou rt h i ssue. IV . V ALU ATI ONS I n hi s t hi r d i ssue, Jer ry assert s num er ous ar gum ent s chal l engi ng t he t r i al
court ’ s pr opert y val uat i ons.22

Er r or s on t he val uat i on ofpr opert y do no tr equi r e r ever sal unl ess, because
o fs u c h e rro rs , th e d i v i s i o n m a d e b y th e tri a l c o u rt i s m a n i fe s tl y u n j u s t. Von Hohn v. Von Hohn , 2 6 0 S .W .3 d 6 3 1 , 6 4 1 (T e x . A p p .— T y l e r 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). Th e t r i a l c o u rt g rant e d t hed i vo r c e o n M a y 12, 2005 , b utt he2007 f i ndi ngs er r oneo usl y st at e t hatt he di vor ce w as r ender ed i n open courton M ar ch 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 . T h is isa n im m a t e r ia l t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r . T h e d e c r e e c o r r e c t ly
s t a t e s t ha tt hem a r r i a gew a sd i s s ol ve d e f f e c t i veM a y 12, 2005 . Jer ry s et s f ort h “ cor r ec t ed val uat i on ” t abl est hatm ak e a num berof in f e r e n c e st h a ta r e in c o n s is t e n t w it h o u r h o ld in g s a b o v e , in c lu d in g t h a tD a n ie lle hasa se par at e p r ope rt y i nt er es ti n t he r anc h pr ope rt y i n t he am oun t of $11 0, 297 . 99. Je r ry a ddi t i ona l l y c om pl ai nst hatt he 200 7 f i ndi ngsdo n ot
con t ai n va l uesas si gne d t o pa rt i cul ar i t em s of pr ope rt y t hatt he 200 6 f i ndi ngs had as si gne d a nd do notl i stva l uesf ort he com m u n i ty d e b t and r es pec t i ve s e p a r a t e p ro p e rti e s , b u t w e fa i l to s e e h o w th i sre n d e rsth e tri a l c o u rt’s p ro p e rtyd i v i s i o n m a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. See Von Hohn , 260 S. W . 3d a t641. A s m ent i one d a bove , t he t r i alco urt att ac hed t o t he f i ndi ngsoff ac tan d
c o n c l u sion s o f l a w an ex h i b i t w i th a tab l e se tti n g forth the co m m u n i ty a ss e ts and cor r espond i ng val ues. The evi dence subm i t t ed at t he f i r st and second f i nal hear i ngs suppo rt s t he t r i al c o u rt ’ s val uat i on f i ndi ngs. W e hol d t hatt he t r i al23

c o u rt d i d n o t e rr i n i ts v a l u a ti o n o f th e m a ri ta le s ta te s . W e o v e rru l e J e rry ’sth i rd i ssue. V . C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d J e rry ’s fou r i ss u e s, w e a ffi rm th e tr i a l c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: HO LM A N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r11, 2008