### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00288-CV Appar ajan Ganesa n, Appellant

v. Sudha Vallabhaneni, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 96-14089, H ONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDG E PRESIDING
Appe llantApparaj an Gan esan appe al s the di strict

co ur t ’s int er locu t or y or der t hat he and Su dh a V alla bha ne ni w er e ma rr ied at co mmo n la w, as we ll as t he su bse qu en t fina l d ec ree of div orce div idi ng thei r mari tal estate. In

th re e iss ue s, appe l l an

t con ten dsth at: (1 ) he is e

n ti tl ed to a new trial because the record o f the s ix

-day j ury tri al

re sult ing in the co mmon law r ulingis in compl ete; (2) the dis trict court erred in

renderi ng a j udgme

nt of comm

on la w ma rriage; and (3) the dis

trictcourt erredin the c har act er izat ion and division o f the parties’ property i n the f in al div orce de cr ee . We will af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e d i str i ct c our t. BACKGROUND In 19 94 , Ga ne sa n r es po nd ed t o Va llabh an en i’s mat r imo nia l ad ve r t ise me n t i n a ma gazi ne, and the two began a rel ationsh ip. Soon after, the couple b egan contem pla ting a f ormal
ma rriage. Duri

ng th e thi rd we ek of Fe b ru ar y 19 95 , V al

l ab h an en i mov ed f rom Ca l i f orn i a to l i v e wi th2

Ganesa n in Aust in. A

t ti mes th rou gh out th e r el ati on sh i p, t h e p ar ti es pu b l i cl y h el d th em se l v es out to be m arried. In

A ug us t 19 96 , the c oup l e s ep arate d, a n d V al l ab h an en i sou gh t a p rot ective order agains t Ganesa n. Ganes an v

iolated the prot ective order, and while servi ng a f ourt een-day

sentence , he sol i ci ted an oth er i n mate to have Val

l abha neni m urdere d. I n 1 99 7, Ga ne sa n file d f o rba nk rup t cy, and dur ing nego t iatio ns he so licited a sec ond individual t o ha ve Va llabhane ni an d he r atto rney m urdere d. G an

es an wa s c onv

i cte d of two c oun

ts of sol i ci tati on to comm i t mu rder, a nd th i s Court aff irm ed t hat co nvictio n re lating to acts aga i nst Val l abha neni
. See Ganesan v. State , 45 S.W.3d 197 (Tex . App.—A

usti n 20 01, pet. ref

’d). The parties tried the c omm on la w ma rriage issuet o a ju r y a nd t her eaft er t ried t he
re maining i ssues b ef ore the c ourt. In J an

uary 1998, th e di stri ct courtren

dered i nterl ocutory judg ment on the jury ’s verdict that Vall abh anen i a nd Gan esan we re marri ed at comm

on la w on Feb ruary 23, 1995. On F ebruary

21, 200 1, the

di stri ct court si

gne d a f i na l decre e of di vorce . DISCUSSI ON Incomp lete Reporter’s Record

In hi s f irst i ssue, appel

la nt argues t ha t be ca us e t he r ec o r d o f t he jur y t r ial is in compl ete, he i s en titl ed to a new trial
. See Tex . R. A pp. P. 34 .6(f

). The j ury tri al

began Septembe

r 8, 1997, an

d l as ted si x d ay s. The cou rt re porte r de stroy ed the note s a nd tap esof the proc ee di ng s f or Septembe r9 and 10 af

ter t he ex piration of three years. Ganesa n di d not request t hat the report er prepa re the record until

May 2001. The two missing days include d ap pellee’s t est imony dur ing t he jury trial port ion of

the cause.1 Appel la nt concedes that he i s unab le to provide authori

ty f or t he proposition tha

t his ban kruptcy procee di ng s tayed th e l

i m i tations peri od f

or hi s rec ord reque st. 3 Courtreportersare pe

rm i tted to destroy

re co rds af

ter three years . SeeTex. G ov’t Code Ann. § 52 .04 6(a )( 4) ( West 199 8); see also Piotrow ski v. Minns , 8 73 S .W. 2d 3 68, 370 (T ex. 1993) (“By

n eg ati v e i m pl i ca ti on , the statu

te au t ho r ize s r ep o r t er s t o cu ll stale n ot es f rom thei r records after three ye ars from

the date on whi ch they

were taken.”). Ganesan

argues he is enti

tled to anew trial because he “

tim el y reques ted” the record and it was l ost or destroy ed “ wi thout appe l l an

t’s f aul t.” SeeTex . R. A

pp. P. 34 .6(f

). The TexasSu pr eme Co ur t has exp re ss ly held t hat “[ i]f a litigant has no t re que st ed t he report er to prep ar e a

sta tem en t o f the f acts wit hin thr ee yea rs, nor spe cifically re que st ed t hat t he notes o f a pr oc eed ing be pr ese rve d beyo nd t hre e year s, t hen t he litigant i s n ot free f rom f aul t . . . .” See Piotrow

ski , 87 3 S .W .2d

at 3 71 . B ec au se

Ga n es an cou l d h av e r eq ue ste d th e r ep orter to prepa

re t he record withi

n three y ears of the proceedi

ng, or at min

im um reque st ed t hat t he r eco rd be preserved, he

i s n ot free f rom f aul t. Acc ordi

ngl y , he i s n ot enti tle d to a ne

w tri al
. See id. at 370 (ho ldingappe l l an

t i s n ot en ti tl ed to a new trial un

less the report er’s notes have been l ost or destr oyed
without appe llant’s fault

and the parti es c an

not agre e on a

statem en t of f acts). 1 Appe llantar gue s t hat his req ues t for t he r ep o r t er ’s r ec o r d w as t imely be ca us e it was ma de “a t o rbe fo r e t he t ime for pe rfecti ng appeal .” See Te x. R. App . P . 3 4. 6( b) (1 ). Ru le 3 4. 6( f) cl ea rl y re qui re s a ti mel y re qu est and

l oss or de stru cti on of the r epo rt er’s not es withou t ap pellan t’s f aul t bef ore he i s en titl ed to a new trial
. SeeTex . R. A pp. P. 34 .6(f

)(1)& (2). Bec aus e ap pellant is not free f rom f aul t, t he f act that hi s request may

h av e b een ti m el y un der R ul e 3 4.6 (b )(1 ) i s i

rre l ev an t. Accordin gly , we overrule appel

la nt’s f irst i ssue.4

Jury Charge In

hi s second issue, appell

ant argues t hat the dist ri ct c ou rt e rre d b y : (1 ) f ai l i n g to pr o pe r ly in struct t he j ury on com

mon l awma rriage, an d (2) refusi

ng to admi

t into evidence a

le tt er from appelle e’s m

ot her suggesti

ng a possi ble future m

arriage date. The standard of revi

ew for error in the j ury ch

arge is ab use of d i scre tion
. Texa

s De p’t of Huma n Ser

vs. v . E. B. , 802 S. W. 2d 64 7, 64 9 ( T ex . 19 90 )
. A t r ial c o ur t ab us es it s d isc r et io n o nly when it acts wi thout referen

ce t o g uiding rules or pri

nc i pl es. Id. To det ermi

ne wh ether an al

le ged
err ori n the j ury ch arge r equi res re versal, the re

vi ewi ng c ourt m

us t co nsider t he plea dings o f the part ies, the evi

dence prese

nted at t r ial, an d t he ch ar ge in it s e nt ir et y. Island Recreational Dev. Corp. v. Republic

of Tex. S av. As s’n , 71 0 S. W.2d 551 , 55 5 (T ex. 1 986 ); Allen v. Allen , 966 S.W.2d 658, 660 (Tex. App.—San A

ntonio 1998, pet. denie d). Alle ged error will b e deem ed r ev er sible o nly

if, when vi ew ed i n l i gh t of the total i ty of t he cir cu mst an ce s, it am

oun ted to s uc h a den i al of th e ri gh ts of t he co mp la in

in g par ty as was

reasonabl

y c al cul ated and probabl

y di d cause the rendi

tion of an i m pr oper j udgm

en t. Tex. R. A

pp. P. 44.1(a

)(1); In re A .V. , 57 S.W.3d 51, 62 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, n o pet.). Ga

ne sa n c om pl ai ns of the di stri ct c ourt’ s i

ns tructi on to th

e j ury reg ard i ng com mon la wmarr iage. Sec t ion 2 .4 01( a) (2 ) o f the Family Co de p ro vides t hat “the marr iage o f a man and
woman ma y b e proved by

evi dence that . . . the ma

n an d woman agr eed t o be marr ied and aft er t he agr eement t hey lived to get her in this st at e as husba nd and wif e an d there represe

nted to ot hers that they were married.” Te

x. F am . Code A

nn . § 2.401( a)(2) (W

est 199 8). Th e j ury

instr uct ion in t he pr ese nt ca se

tracksthe

l an gua geof t he co de: “A

man and a wo man are marr ied if the y agr eed t o be
ma rried and a fte r t he ag re ement t he y l iv ed t ogethe

r i n Texa s as

hus ba nd a nd w i f e an d there2 Appe llant r elies o n Jus t ice Rick off’s c onc ur ring o pinion in Fuentes . 5 represented

to ot hers that

they were ma rried.” Bas ed

on t his instr uct ion, t he jur y found t hat app ellant and Val la bha nen i we re marri ed as of F ebruary

23, 1995. The d i str i ct c our t re j ec ted th e f oll owi n g s et of i n str uc ti on s s ub m i tted b y appe l l an t: Living Tog ether in Texas. A

n ag re em en t to m ar ry i n th e f utu re , c oup l ed

wi th cohabitation, wil

l n ot establi sh

a m arriage. Leal v. Moreno , 733 S. W.2 d 32 2 ( Te x. App.—Corpus Ch r ist i 19 87 )
. Me r ely livin g w it ha pe rso n of t he o ppo site sex a nd having a sexual

rel at io nsh

ip wi th that person is n

ot enough to establi

sh a m arriage. Thompkins

v. State , 774 S.W .2d 195 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1987 ). Re pre senta ti on to Others . The e l em

en t of repres en ti ng to othe rs i s n ot satisf ie d by an occasiona

l un contradicted referen

ce to a cohabi

tant as “m y w if e” or “m y h usban d” or “ m i ne .” S uc h s

tate men ts w i l l not prove a tacit agreem

ent to be marri ed wi

thout corroborati

on. St at ement s re fere ncing someone as their “ husb and” or “wi

fe” m ade in a self-serv

in g context do not have to be taken as tru e state men ts when d et er mini

ng if th e p ar ti es h ad an ag re em en t t o be m arr i ed. Russell

v. Russe ll , 865 S.W.2d 929 (Tex . 1993)
. Con ti n ui ty of Exi stence of Ma

rriage . One can

not bot h decl

are to be singl e an d ma rried. A par t y canno t dr op in and o ut of mar riag e ba sed on t he fi nan ci al op port un ities or adv an

tagesthat status

pres en ts on di f f eren t days. Fuentes v. Transameri ca Nat ’l Gas Corp. , 933 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. App.—San A ntonio 1996, n.w .h.). 2 Appel la nt contends that because the e vi dence supportedth e s

ub m i ss i on of th es e i n str uc ti on s to t he jury , the trial court erred by

not givi ng them . We di sagree. Trial court s are charged

with s ubm ittin g “such in structions and def

in itions as shall be proper to enab le

the jury to render a ve

rdict.” St . J os ep h H os p. v . W ol ff , 9 99 S .W. 2d 5 79, 586 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 9, no p et .) . T he trial court ’s l atitude in this area i s even

greater t han

in the area of j ury questions. Oadra v. Stegall, 871 S.W.2d 882, 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Di st.] 1994,6

no wri t). “If the charge resol

ves the controll

in g is sues rai sed

by t he ple ad ing s a nd an y evid en ce in
a fea sible manner t hat do es no t co nfuse t he jur y, no error o ccurs.” Connell Chevrolet Co. v. Leak , 967 S. W.2 d 88 8, 894 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 8, no p et .) . I n t he pr ese nt cas e, t he di str ict co urt ’s i ns truc ti on made i t cl ea r to th e jur y tha t it co uld find t he pa r t ies we r e in fo r mally ma rr ied o nly if it found: (1) an agreem

ent to be marri ed, (2) aft er t he ag re ement , t he couple l iv ed toget her i

n Texas as hus ban d and wi fe, an d (3) th e c oup l e r ep re se

n ted to othersthat the

y were married. See Russ ell
v. Russell , 865 S.W .2d 929 , 932 (Tex. 19 93). T his in st ruc t io n is co nsis t en t wit h bo t h t he ap plic ab le Fa mily Code pr ovi sion an d the Tex as Pa ttern Jury Charge. SeeTex. Fam . Code An n. § 2 .401(a

)(2); Co mm. on

Pattern Jury Charges , State Bar

of Tex., Texas Pattern Jur y Charges

Fam il y PJC 201.4A (2 000). As such , we

ca nn ot sa y tha t the di stri ct c ourt’ s i

ns tructi on a moun ted to an ab us e of di scre tion
. St. Joseph Hosp. , 999 S.W.2d at 586. E ve n if the dis trict court ’s f

ai lure to giv

e the i nstruction consti

tut ed error, howev er, app ellant does not contend that t he ch arge am ounted to such a den

ia l of hi s righ ts as wa s r ea so na bly
ca l cul ate d an d p r o ba bly di d cau se the ren di tion of a n i m proper j udgm

en t. SeeTex. R. A

pp. P. 44.1(a )(1). Ganesa

n argues h

is pr oposed instr uct ion “wo uld have helped t he jur y evaluat e t he evi dence re ga rd i n g th e p ar ti es ’ a gr eemen t [to be married],”

and t hat “[w] itho ut t he inst ru ct ions, t he j ury could m in im iz e or ignore t he evi den

ce [that Gan

esa n a nd Val l abha neni contem pl ated a f uture
marriage].”

In ef fect, Ganes an

t ende re d t he inst ru ct ion so t he co ur t co uld p ro vide t he jury guida nce on t he we ight t o g ive the evidenc e, which wo uld have been a n impermissible co mment by t he trial court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 27 7. T he r efo r e, an y er r o rin the charge do es not merit reversal because t he r e h as be en no sho win g t ha t it wa s r ea so na bly ca lcu lat ed an d p r o ba bly did cause rendi

tion of an3 Ap pe llant cit es Ru le “9 01 ( 4) ”a s a ut ho r it y fo rt his c o nt en t io n; w e a ss ume he r efe r s t o Ru le

901(b)(4). 7 im proper ju dgment. See Passons , 969 S.W.2 d at 563. Accor dingl y, we over rule Ganesan’s
com pl ai n t. Exclusion of the Evidence

Appe llantco nt ends t hat t he dist rict co ur t er re d by sust aini ng appellee’s ob

j ec ti on to t he ad m i ss i on of a l etter in to evi dence. Appellant t estified that t he lette r was sent by Val labh aneni’s mother suggestin g an appropriate tim

e for a f ormal ma rriage cer emony. Bec aus e ap pellant coul d n ot t est ify t o t he fact t hat t he let t er was in the mothe r’ s h an dw ri ti ng , ap pe l l eeobj ec ted

to i ts adm i ss i on on the grou nd tha t i t ha d n ot be en pr o pe r ly

aut hent icat ed. The dist rict co ur t sus t ained t he o bject ion. The admissi

on o r exclusion of evidence is comm itte d t o t he tr ial

cou rt ’s so und discr et ion. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d 750, 75 3 ( Te x . 19 95 ). A pa rty se ek i n g to reverse a j udg

men t ba se d on the adm is si on or exclus ion of

evi dence mus t show that t he ev

ide nce was er r o ne o us ly

admit t ed o r e xclude d and t ha t th e error pro bab ly caused rendi

tion of an

im proper j udgm en t. Id. ; see also Te x . R . A

pp . P. 44 .1( a) (1 ); Te x . R . Ev i d. 1 03 (a). A

succ es sf ul ch al l en ge to ev i de n ti ary

ru lings usu ally requ ires t he co mplaining par t y to sho w t he judg ment t ur ns o n t he particular evi den ce e xc l uded or adm i tted. Alvarado , 897 S.W.2dat 753-54. We determ in e whether the c ase turns on the evi den ce e xc l uded by revi ewi ng th e en tire record. Id. at 753. The o nly au t ho r it y cit ed by ap pe llant in his dis cu ss io n o f t his is su e is T ex as Ru le of Evi dence 901(b)(4), 3 which pr ovid es t hat t he au t hent icat ion r equ irement can b e m et by “appearan

ce, content s, substanc e, in

ternal patter ns, or ot her di stin

ctive characteri stics, taken

i n con j un cti on wi th4 On appeal, appell ant restates his

argumen t t hat the l etter should be adm itted asa re f l ec ti on of t he family’s st at e o f mind ; ho we ve r , ap pe llant cit es no au t ho r it y fo rhis p o sit io n, an d h is is sue i s overruled acc ordi ngl y . SeeTex. R. A

pp. P. 38. 1(h

). In an y even t, we que sti on h owt he st at e o f mi

nd of appel le e’s f am il y i s rel evan t t o pro ve the partie s’ m

utual agreem

ent to be marri ed. 8 ci rcum stan ces .” Te x. R. Evi d. 901(b)(4). Ho wever, the record reflects that appell ant fai le d to ma ke t his argumen

t t o t he trial

court ; appel

la nt’s response t o a ppe llee’s o bject ion wa s lim ited t o t he contention that the l etter was not bei ng off ered for i ts tr uth, but as a

re flect ion o f the st at e o f mi nd of ap pe llee ’s family. Be ca us e a pp ella nt did no t pr es en t t his argu men t to the tri al cou rt, he c an not
ma ke i t o n appeal . Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Accordingl y, we overrul

e the i ssue. 4 Legal and Factual Sufficiency of the Evidence

Ap pe lla nt ch al

l engesthe f

actual suf f i ci ency of the ev

i den ce s upporti ng th e j ury ’ s fi ndi ng that the parties were m arried. He f

urtherchal

le nges the l egal and f actual suf fi ci ency of t he evidence support in

g the jury’s

fi ndi ng that t he parties’ i

nf orma l marriage oc curre d on F ebruary 23, 1995. In h

i s thi rd i ssue, G anes an challenge s t he fact ual su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e t o s upp or t t he dis trict court ’s di stribution of the m arital estate. [W]hen an appel la nt compl ai ns of the factual or legal

suf fi ci ency of t he evidenc e, t he app ellant ha s the burden to show that the judgm

ent is erroneous, and this

burden ca nn ot be di scharged i

n the ab sence

of a co mplet e o r a gr eed st at ement of f acts; rathe r, “i t is pres um ed th at the om

i tted evi den

ce s upports the tri al

court’s j udgm en t.”
Kw ik Wash Lau ndries , Inc. v. McIn tyre , 8 40 S .W. 2d 7 39, 741 -4 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus t in 199 2, no wri t); see also Englander Co. v. Kennedy , 428 S .W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. 1968). Because Ganes an5 Wh

i l e app el l an t does n ot mak e the argum en t, w e n ote th

at England er and McIntyre pr edate current Rule of A

ppell ate Pr ocedur e 34.6( c)(4) , which pro vides: The appella

te court mus

t pr es ume t hat t he pa rt ial rep or t er ’s r eco rd des ignat ed by t he parties constitutes

the e nti re rec ordf

orpurpo ses of revi ewin

g the sta ted po in

ts o r issues. T his presumption appli

es even i f the statement incl

udes apoint or iss

ue co mplaining of t he le gal or fact ual insufficiency of t he evi dence to support a specifi

c fac tualfi ndi ng i dentif ie d in that point or issue. Te x. R. App. P. 3 4.6 (c )(4 ). O n e c our t of appe als h

as ob se rv ed , “Ru l e 3 4.6 (c ) a l l ows

appe l l an t to request a pa rt ial rep or t er ’s r eco rd in or der t o minimi ze t he exp ense and d elay asso ciat ed w ith t he appe l l ate process.” Jaramillo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. , 9 86 S .W. 2d 7 01, 702 (T ex. App. —E ast land

1998, no pe t . )
. Ga ne sa n d id not design

ate a partial

report er’s record, and the poli cy con si de rati on o f minimizing expe ns e a nd de lay d o es no t ap ply h er e. Be ca us e a pp ella nt simp ly negl ected to request or pr eserve the reporter’s record, Rule 34.6(c)(4) is n ot applic abl

e. 9 fai le d t o file a compl ete r eport er’s record or agreed st atemen t o f the f acts, hi s f actual an d le gal suf f i ci ency ch al l engesm ust f ail
. See id
. 5 Even in the absen

ce of a com

ple te repor ter’s record, the p art ia l record bef

ore us re f l ec ts fact ually sufficientevi dence to support the fi

ndi ng that the parties were i

nf ormal ly ma rried,
as well a s the di strict court ’s di vi si on of m

arital prope rt y. The re co rd furt her re flect s lega lly and fac t ua lly suf fi ci ent evi dence to support the fi

ndi ng that the parties’ i

nf ormal ma rriage occurred

o n Feb ruary 23, 1995. To reviewthe evi dence under a no-evi

dence poi nt, we consi der all

the evi dence in the li ght most fav

orable to the prevai

li ng party, i ndul gin g every reasonabl e i nf erence in that par ty’s f av or. Leal v. Texas Dep’ t of Prote ctive & Regulatory Servs. , 25 S.W .3d 315 , 321 (Tex . Ap p. —A us t in

200 0, no p et .) . We will upho ld t he find in g if more than a s ci

ntil la of the evi

dence
su pp orts i t. Garza v. Alviar , 39 5 S. W.2d 821 , 82 3 (T ex. 1 965 ); In re Kin g’s Estate , 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. 1951). The evi dence supportin

g a fi ndi ng am ounts to more th an

a s ci n ti lla if10

r ea so na ble mind s c o uld ar r iv e at t he f i ndi ng gi ven the f acts proved

i n the parti

cul ar ca se. Id. ; Brigham v. Brigham , 863 S.W .2d 761 , 762 (Tex. A pp.—D al l as 1 993, w

ri t deni ed). Wh en re viewing a jur y verd ict t o d et er mine the factual suf fi ci ency of the evi dence, we must consider and weigh

all the eviden

ce and should set aside the j udgment only if it is so contrar

y to th e ov er wh el m i n g w ei gh t o f the e vi den ce a s to be c l earl

y wrong and un j ust. Cain v. Bain , 709 S. W.2d 175 , 17 6 (T ex. 1 986 ); Leal , 25 S .W.3 d at 321 ; Brigham , 863 S.W.2dat 76 2- 63
. We will not sub sti tute our j udgm

ent for t hat of t he t rier of fac t merely beca use we r eac h a differe nt conc l usi on. Leal , 25 S.W.3d at 321. As t he bas is for his challenge t o t he finding t hat t he pa r t ies we r e in fo r mally ma rried, appe l l an t ref ers t o his trial

testim ony i n wh ic h he in dic ates that he only

agreed to a future marria ge to Vall abhan eni and recount s the occasions o n which t he ir attempts to be form al ly ma rried f ai le d. Appe llantals o po int s t o t he t es t imo ny o f Ke vin L ev er en z, a p o lic e of f i ce r w i ththe Austi

n Poli ce De pa rtm en t. Leveren

z testif ie d t h at he r espo nded t o a d omestic distu rbance call at appellant’s resi dence i n A ug us t 19 95 an

d th at a pp el l ee repe ate dl y com pl ai n ed th at G an es an h ad b rough t h er to Au st in under f al se pretensesof becom

in g hi s wi fe. Ga

ne sa n f urth er p oi nts to ap pe l l ee ’s

i m m i gra ti on doc um en tation in whi ch sh e holds her self ou t as single. Appe llant d ismi sses all ot her co nfli ct ing evi dence in the re cord a s “

i n di re ct” an d c o nc lu de s t ha t “[ i] n t he ab se nc e o f V alla bha ne ni’ s t es t imo ny, t he evi dence of record surely

preponderates again

st the jury ’s f

in din g that t here was

a comm on la w marriage.” Appel

le e re spo nds by pr ovi ding num erous citations to the record before us whi ch i n di ca te the exi stence of an i

nf ormal ma rriage, i ncl udin g the fol lowi ng: (1) Ganes an testif

ie d under oath in a deposition in

Novem ber 1995 that appel le e was hi s comm on la w wi fe; (2) Ganesan

referred11

to appelle e as his w ife in a le tt er si gned b y b ot h parties ; (3) appelle e referred to Ganesan as her husba nd in a l etter to the Consulate General of Swi tzerland;and (4) appel

le e referred to Ganesan

as her common-law husband i

n her request for pr ot ect ive or der . Aft er re viewing t he evi dence contai

ned in the i nc om pleterec ord, weca

nn ot say that t he judg ment is s o c ont ra ry t o t he o ver whelming weight of the evi dence as to be cl early wrong and unjust. Accordingl y, we overrul

e appella nt’s i ssue. Appe llantcontends t hat t he evide nce is leg ally and fact ually insuffi

cient t o s upp or t t he jury’s f i ndi ng th at the p arti es’ i

nf orma l marriage oc curr ed o n Fe br ua ry 23 , 19 95
. Ho we ve r , it is undi sputed that t he parties bega n livi

ng t og et her in Aust in dur ing t he third week of February 1995. Ac co r di ng ly, we concl

ude that there is

more than a s ci

ntil la of evi dence to support the jury ’s f in din g, and we ca nno t sa y t ha t t he jud gme nt is so contrary to t he overwhel mi ng wei ght of the evi

dence as to b e c l ea rl y wr on g a n d u n j us t; th er ef

ore , w e ov

er ru l e a pp el l an t’s com pl ai n t. Appe llantco nt ends t hat t he evi dence is factual ly in suf fi ci ent to suppo rt t he di strict
cou rt ’s fi ndi ng that he f

ai le d to overcome the presum pt io n o f co mmu nit y pr o pe r t y as t o ce r t ain
re t irement an

d broke rag e a cc oun

ts a nd a ra nc h. “ Prop erty

pos se ss ed

by ei the r s pous e d

uri ng or on dis soluti on of m

arriage i s presum ed to be com

m uni ty property .” Tex. Fam . Code Ann . § 3.003(a) (West 199 8). “ Th e d egree of proof n ec es sa ry to es tab l i sh th at p rop er

ty i s s ep ar ate

propert y i

s clear and convi nci ng ev ide nce.” Id. § 3.003(b) (West 1998). Clear an d convi nci ng ev ide nceis the degree of pr oof th at wi l l pr oduce i n th e m i n d of th e tr i er of f ac t a f i rm b el i ef or c on v i cti on ab out t he allegat ions sough

t to be es tabl

i shed. Se e Tarve r v. Tarver , 394 S.W .2d 780 , 783 (Tex. 19 65); Ellebracht v. Ellebracht , 735 S.W.2d 658, 659 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, no wr it )
. T o o ve r co me t his pr es um pti on , the s pou se cl ai m i n g s ep arate

pr ope rty must t ra ce a nd clea rly ident ify t he pr operty cl ai me d to be sep arate. See Wh orall v. W horall, 69 1 S
. W. 2d 32 , 35 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1 98 5, wr it12

dis m’ d) (citi ng McKinley v. McKinley , 496 S.W.2 d 540 ( Tex . 1973) ). Tracin g in volv es est ablishing t he sep ar at e o rigin o f the pr op er t y thr ou gh evide nce s how ing t he t ime and means by which t he spouse origi na l l y obtai ne d poss ess i on of

the p roperty . See id. The r ec o r d r efle ct s t ha t t he o nly ev ide nc e a pp ella nt pr o vid ed wa s his ow n t est imony that he had certai

n accounts pri or t o his

ma rriage to Vall

abh anen i, out of wh i ch h e m ade p ay men ts f ort he r anch, and s eve r al exhi bi ts pur por ting to est abl

ish the separat e nature o f those account s. Howev er, Gane san’s t est imony is li mited t o na ming the instit ut ions ho ldinghi s accounts; ne it he rhis t est imony nor the ex hi bi ts pro vi de account num

bers, stat emen

ts o f accounts, dat es of transfers,
am oun ts tra n sf er re d i n or ou t, s ource s of

f un ds , or a n y se m b l an ce of as set tra ci

n g. Th e b

ur den to o ve r co me t he st at ut or y pre sumpt ion wa s o n Gane san, and w e ca nnot say t hat t he di str i ct cou rt ’s f ail ure to f i n d th at h e ov erca me th e c om m un i ty pr ope rty pres um pti on i s con

trary t o t he o ver whelming wei ght of the evi

dence so as to be clearly

wrong and unjust. Accordingl y, h is is sue i s overruled. Fin ally, app ellant c hallenges t he t rial co ur t ’s division o f marita l pro per t y. In t h e div orce de cr ee , t he t r ial c o ur t ha s t he du t y t o o r de ra ju st an d r igh t div isio n of the par ties’ estate, having due regard f

or t he ri ghts

of e ach spous e. Tex . Fam

. Code A nn . § 7.001 (We st 1998 ). Appe llantconten

ds that there is insufficient evide nce t o s upp or t t he dist rict co ur t ’s division o f the
com m un i ty estate b as ed on an y disp ari ty in in come or earni

ng potential . However, appell ant does not point to and we are unaw are o f any indi cat ion in the dist rict co urt ’s judgm ent or fi ndi ngs of fact and con cl us i ons of l aw tha t the tri al cou rt’ s d i vi si on of th e p rop er

ty wa s ba se d o n d isp ar it y in inc o me or e ar n i n g p oten ti al . A s s uc h , w e ov

er ru l e h i s c om pl ai n t.13 CONCLU SION We o ve rrule al

l of Ga ne sa n’ s c om pl ai nts on app eal. We t her efo re affirm the jud gment of th e d i str i ct c our t.

Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

Yeakel and Pury ear Af fi rmed File d: March 21, 2002 Publish