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

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 1 3 - CV
K E E L Y DE NI S E B AL L AP P E L L ANT V . TH O M A S M I C H A EL RO N EY 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

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A ppel l antK eel y D eni se Bal l br i ngs t hi s r est r i ct ed appeal f r om herdi vor ce dec r eeco m pl ai ni ng t hatt her e i s no e vi den cet hatt he t r i alco urt ’s d i vi si on of pr opert y and deb t s i s j ustand r i ght. Because w e hol d t hatt her e w as no cl ear and co nvi nci ng e vi den cet hatt he part i espos se ss ed no c om m uni t y pr ope rt y a nd t hat t her e w as no evi den ce pr es ent ed t o t he t r i al cou rt con ce r ni ng t he val ue of2

t he as se t s ort he am ountoft he l i abi l i t i es , w e a r e r e q u i re d to rev er sean d
r em and . II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND A ppel l ee T h o m a s M i chael Ro ney and Bal l m ar r i ed i n 1 98 6, and R oney f i l ed f ordiv o rc e on O ct ober26 , 20 07 . Bal l di d not f i l e an answ er . Th e t r i al cou rthe ar d t es t i m ony f r om Roneyan d s i gne d t he f i nalde c re e o f di vor ceon D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . Th e t r i al courtaw ar ded R oney al l hou s e h o ld f ur ni t ur e, f ur ni shi ngs, f ix t u r e s , g o o d s , a rto bje c t s , c o lle c t i b l e s , a p p lia n c e s , a n d e q u ip m e n tin h is p o ss e ss i o n o r su bj e c t t o h i s c o n tr o l ; a l l cloth i n g , j e w e l ry, an d p e rso n a l effe c ts i n h i s p o ss e ss i o n o r su bj e c t to h i s c o n tr o l ; th e fu n d s o n d e p o sit , to g e th e r w i th accr ued bu tunpai d i nt er est , i n banks, savi ngs i nst itu tio n s , orot herf i nanci al i n sti tu ti o n s i n h i s n a m e o r i n T h o m a s R o n e y , L L C ; a l l sto c k , i n tere st, an d as se ts i n T hom as Ron ey, LLC ; and t he 2 00 6 H ond a C i vi c. The t r i al courto rd e r ed R oney to pay al l debton t he H ond a C i vi c l ease; t he debt i n hi s nam e t hatw as ow ed t o a ny i ns t i t ut i on, cred i t c a rd, orba nk; an d a l l de bt s and l i abi l i t i esof T h o m a s R o n e y , L L C . B a ll re c e iv e d a ll d e p o s it so n t h e p r o p e rt yk n o w n a s4 0 2 1 C a ld w e ll A venue, Th e C ol ony, Texas; al l househo l d f ur ni t ur e, f ur ni shi ngs, f i xt u r es, goods , artobj ec t s, co l l ec t i bl es , ap pl i anc es , an d e qui pm enti n he rpos se ss i on or3

s u bje c tt o h e rs o le c o n t r o l; a ll c lo t h in g , je w e lry , a n d o t h e rp e r s o n a l e f f e c t sin herpossessi on o rsubj ectt o hersol e cont r ol ; t he f und s on deposi t , t ogether
w i t h accr ued bu tunpai d i nt er e s t, in banks, savi ngs i nst i t ut i ons, orot her f i nan ci al i ns t i t ut i onsi n he rna m e; t he su m s, w het herm at ur ed orunm at ur ed, a c c rue d o r un a c c rue d , v e ste d o r oth e rw i se , to g e th e r w i th alli n c rea se s th e reo f, t he pr oce edst her ef r om , an d a ny ot her r i ght s r el at ed t o a ny p r of i t - sh ar i ng pl an, r et i r em entpl an, K eogh pl an, pensi on pl an, em pl oyee st ock opti on pl an, 40 1( k) pl an, em pl oyee savi ngs pl an, accr ued un pai d bon uses, di sabi l i t y pl an, orot her ben ef i t s exi st i ng by r ea so n of herpa st , pr es ent , orf ut ur e e m pl oym ent ; an d t he vehi cl e i n herpossessi on. The t r i al court or der ed Bal l t o pay al l debti ncur r ed to a n yi n s ti tu ti o n , c re d i t c a rd , o r b a n ki n h e r n a m e . Bal l f i l ed hernot i ce ofappeal w i t hi n si x m onths af t ert he j udg m entw as si gned and st at ed t hatshe di d not part i ci pat e i n t he deci si on- m aki ng even tt hat pr oduc ed t he f i nal j udgm ent ; t hat sh e d i d nott i m el y f i l e a pos tj udgm entm ot i on, a re q u e s tf o rf in d in g so ff a c t , o ra n o t ic e o fo r d in a rya p p e a l; a n d t h a t e r r o ris app ar enton t he f ac e of t he r ec or d. Bal l t her ef or e hasm ett he r equ i r em ent s f or a re s t r i c t e d a p p e a l . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 0 ; Nor m an Com m c’

nsv. Tex. Eas tm an Co. , 9 5 5 S .W .2 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ).2 ... Bal l ’ s f i r sti ss ue se t s fo rth he rco m pl i anc e w i t h Tex asRul e o f

A p p e lla t e P r o c e d u r e 3 0 , s h o w in g t h a ts h e is e n t it le d t o f ile a re s t r ic t e d a p p e a l. S eeTe x. R. App . P. 30. 4 III. N O C L EAR A ND C ONV I NC I NG E VI DE NC E T O R EBUT C O M M UN ITY P RO P ER TY P RESUMPTI ON AND N O E VI DE NC E OFT HE V AL UEOF T HE A SSETSAND D EBT S D I VI DED B Y D I VOR C E D EC RE E Bal l ar gue s i n he rs ec ond i ss ue 2 t hat t he t r i al cou rtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by d i vi di ng t he part i es ’ m ar i t ales t at e b ec aus e th e re i s no e vi den cet hatt he d iv is io n o fp r o p e rt ya n d d e b t sisju s ta n d rig h t . R o n e yre s p o n d st h a th is st at em entatt r i al

— t hatt her e w asno “ att r i but abl e c om m uni t y pr ope rt y”t o be d iv id e d

— iss u f f ic ie n te v id e n c e f o r t h e t r ia l c o u rt t o d iv id e t h e p r o p e rt y a s itd id i n th e fi n a l d e c re e . A . St andar d ofRev i ew M ostoft he appeal abl e i ssues i n a f am i l y l aw case ar e eval uat ed agai nst a n ab u se o f d i sc reti o n sta n d a rd, b e i t th e i ss u e o f p rop e rt yd i v i sion i n c i d e n t t o d i v o rce o r pa rt i ti o n , c o n s e r v a to rsh i p , v i sit a ti o n , o r ch i l d su p p o rt . Sandonev. Mi l ler- Sandon e , 1 1 6 S .W .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 5 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t. ). W h i l e th e a p p e l l a n t m a yc h a l l e n g e th e s u fficie n c yo f th e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt fi n d i n g s o f fa c t, i n m o s t c i rc u m s ta n c e s , th a t i s n o t e n o u g h . Id. at 2 0 5

– 0 6 . I f, fo r ex a m p le , a n ap p e l l a n t i s c h a l l e n g i n g the su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to suppo rtt he court ’ s val uat i on of a part i cul ar asset , she m ustal so cont end t hat5

t h e e r r o n e o u sv a lu a t io n c a u s e d t h e c o u rt t o a b u s e it s d is c r e t io n in t h e o v e r a ll d i v i s i o n o f th e c o m m u n i tye s ta te . Id. at 2 0 6 . B e c a u se the se i ss u e s i m p l i c a te t w o di f f er entappel l at e st andar ds ofr evi ew , w e m ustaddr ess bot h oft hem . I n c o n side ri n g a l e g a l su ffi c i e n c y o r “n o e v i d e n c e ” p o i n t , a n a p p e l l a te cou rtco ns i der s onl y t he evi den cew hi ch t end s t o su pportt he j ury’ s f i ndi ngsan d d i s re g a r d s a l l e v i d e n c e a n d i n fe re n c e sto th e c o n tra ry . Gar za v. A lvi

ar, 395 S .W .2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 3 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ); Sandon e , 116 S . W . 3d at206. I fan y pr oba t i ve e v i d e n c e s u p p o rtsth e fa c tfin d e r’sd e te rm i n a ti o n , i t m u s t b e u p h e l d . Inre K i ng ’s E sta te , 1 5 0 T e x . 6 6 2 , 2 4 4 S .W .2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 1

– 6 2 (1 9 5 1 ); Nei ly v. A aron , 7 2 4S .W .2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 8 7 , n o w ri t). The t es tf oran ab us e of di sc r et i on i s not w het her , i n t he opi ni on oft he re v i e w i n g c o u rt, th e fa c ts p re s e n t a n a p p ro p ri a te c a s e f o r t h e tri a l c o u rt’s ac t i on, but w het her t he cou rt ac t ed w i t houtr ef er enc e t o a ny g ui di ng r ul esan d p ri n c i p l e s . D owner v. A quam ar i ne Operators, I

nc. , 701 S . W . 2d 238, 242 ( Tex. 1 9 8 5 ), cert. denied, 476 U . S. 115 9 ( 198 6) . The m er e f ac t t hat a t r i al j udge
m ay deci de a m at t erw i t hi n hi s di scr et i onar y aut ho rity i n a di f f er entm anner t han an app el l at e j udg e i n a si m i l arci r cum st ance does not dem onst r at e t hatan a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n h a so c c u rre d . Sw. Bel l Teleph o n e C o . v. Johns on , 389 S .W .2 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ).6

W h e re s u fficie n c y re v i e w o v e rl a p s th e a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd , w e eng age i n a t w o pr onge d i nqui ry: ( 1) D i d t he t r i al cou rt h a v e s u ff i ci ent i n fo rm a ti o n u p o n w h i c h to e x e rc i s e i ts d i s c re ti o n ; a n d (2 ) d i d th e tri a l c o u rt e rr i n i t s appl i cat i on of di scr et i on? Sandon e , 11 6 S . W . 3d at20 6. The t r adi t i onal s u fficie n c yre v i e w c o m e si n to p l a y w i th re g a rd to th e fi rs t q u e s ti o n ; h o w e v e r, o u r i n q u i ryc a n n o t s to p th e re . Id. W e m u s t p ro c e e d to d e t e r m i n e w h e th e r, b a s e d o n 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 e a re a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n . Id. S t at ed i nver sel y, w e m ustconcl ude t hat t he t r i al court ’ s deci si on w as nei t her a rb i tra ryn o r u n re a s o n a b l e . Id. B. Pr operty D i vi si on and V al uat i on Ev i dence P rop e rt yo w n e d b e fo re m a rr i a g e o r a c q u i red d u ri n g m a rr i a g e b yg i ft, dev i se , orde sc enti s se par at e p r ope rt y. Tex. Fam . C ode A nn. § 3. 001 ( V er non 2 0 0 6 ). C o m m u n i ty p rop e rt yco n sists o f al l p rop e rt y , o th e r t h a n se p a rate p ro p e rty , a c q u i re d b y e i th e r s p o u s e d u ri n g m a rri a g e . Id. § 3 .0 0 2 . A l l p rop e rt y on ha nd a tt he di ss ol ut i on of m ar r i age i s pr es um ed t o beco m m uni t y pr ope rt y. Id. § 3 . 00 3( a) . Thi s, how ever , i s a r ebutt abl e pr esum pt i on, r equi r i ng a spouse cl ai m i ng asset s as separ at e pr opert y t o est abl i sh t he separ at e char act erby cl ear a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e u s u a l l yth ro u g h tra c i n g . Id. § 3 .0 0 3 (b ); Boyd v. Boyd, 13 1 S . W . 3d 60 5, 61 2 ( Tex . A pp. — Fort W ort h 20 04 , no pet . ) . A ny do ubt as to the ch a rac ter o f pro p e r t y s h o u l d b e res o l v e d i n fav o r of the co m m u n i ty7

e s ta te . Id. § 3 .0 0 3 (a). A tri a l c o u r t i s c h a rge d w i th d i v i d i n g the co m m u n i ty e s ta te i n a “j u s t a n d ri g h t” m a n n e r, c o n s i d e ri n g th e ri g h ts o f b o th p a rti e s . Id. § 7. 001. A l th o u g h the tr i a l co u rti s n o t r e q u i red to d i v i d e the c o m m u n i ty e sta te e q u a l l y , i ts d i v i s i o n m u s t b e e q u i ta b l e . Zieb av. Ma rtin , 928 S. W . 2d 782, 790 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 6 , n o w ri t); S chuster v. Sch uster, 690 S .W .2 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 5 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 1 9 8 5 , n o w ri t). T h e tri a l c o u rt’s di scr et i on i s notunl i m i t ed, and t her e m ustbe som e r easonabl e basi s f oran u n e q u a l d i v i s i o n . Zieba , 928 S .W .2 d a t790. Court s ar e v es t ed w i t h w i de di sc r et i ona ry po w er s i n s ui t s f ordi vor ce , butt he di vi si on ofpr ope rt y m us tbe j u s t a n d ri g h t. Massey v. Massey , 807 S . W . 2d 391, 405 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 1 , w ri t d e n i e d ). A p e t i t i o n f o rd i v o r c e ma yn o tb e t a k e n a sc o n f e s s e d i ft h e r e s p o n d ent doe s notf i l e a n a ns w er . Tex . Fa m . Code A nn. § 6. 701 ( V er non 199 8) . The st at ut e r equi r es t he pet i t i onert o pr esentpr oof t o su ppo rtt he m at er i al a l l e g a ti o n si n th e p e ti ti o n d e s p i te a re s p o n d e n t’sfa i l u re to a n s w e r. Sandon e , 1 1 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 0 7 . H e re , Roney w ast he onl y w i t nes s t o t es t i f y, an d hi s ent i r e t es t i m ony c o n sists o f tw o p a g e s o f th e rec o rd. T h e o n l yev i d e n c e reg a rding the p rop e rt y o ft h e p a rt ie sisre c it e d h e r e v e r b a t im :8

Q . A nd y ou ha ve notco m e t o a n a gr ee m ent o n t he di vi si on of pr opert y, but you pr opo se a di vi si on of pr opert y w h ic h in c l udes t hatshe has al l t he possessi ons i n her- -has al l i t e m s i n her pos se ss i on, ban k ac cou nt s and you hav e al l i t em s i n you r pos s es si on, ba nk ac cou nt s and doe s t he m ar r i ageha ve any att r i but abl e c om m uni t y pr ope rt y? A . N o. Q. An d s h e h a sh e rc a ra n d y o u h a v e y o u rc a r a n d s h e ’ s a CP A; i s th a t co rr e c t? A . T h a t’ s c o rr e c t. Q . A n d sh e w o rks a n d h a s w o rke d i n D a l l a s i n the p a st, co rr e c t? A . Y es. Q . A nd y ou’ ve di vi ded up a ny d e b ts b e t w ee n t he part i esan d t hi s i s st r i ct l y w hat you puton y ourcr edi tca r d a nd w hats he’ s put on he rcr edi tca r d? A . Y e s . N o exhi bi t s w er e i nt r odu ced i nt o evi dence. T h e f ir s tis s u e t h a tw e m u s ta d d r e s sisw h e t h e rR o n e y ’s m o n o s y lla b ic
r esponse t o a com pou nd qu est i on pr ovi des cl earand c o n v in c ing evi dence e sta b l is h i n g the p a rt i e s’ se p a rate p rop e rt yan d reb u tti n g the co m m u n i ty pr opert y pr esum pt i on. A tt he t ai l end oft he com pou nd qu est i on, t he at t or ney q u e sti o n i n g R o n e yas k e d i f t h e m a rr i a g e p rod u c e d a n y a ttr i b u tab l e co m m u n i ty pr opert y, t o w hi ch R oney an sw er ed, “N o. ” I fw e b e g in w ith t he r equi r ed st at ut ory pres u m p ti on t hatal l t he cou pl es ’ as se t s w er e c om m uni t y pr ope rt y,9

t hen Roney ’ s m onos yl l abi c r es ponse f ai l s t o ov er com e t hatpr es um pt i on b e c a u s e R o n e y d id n o t t r a c e a n y o f t h e a s s e t s f r o m t h e m a r r ia g e b a c kin t im e to p ro v e th e i r s e p a ra te c h a ra c te r. S ee Mock v. Mock , 216 S. W . 3d 370, 373 ( Tex. A pp. — Eas t l and 200 6, pet . den i ed) ( ci t i ng Boyd, 131 S. W . 3d at612, an d st at i ng ge ner al r ul e t hat t es t i m ony t hatf undsar e s epa r at e p r ope rt y w i t houtan y t r a c i n g o f th e fu n d si si n s u fficie n t to re b u t th e c o m m u n i typ re s u m p ti o n ). Beca us e Rone y f ai l ed t o t r ac e a ny o ft he as se t s, hedi d notm ee thi s bur den of e sta b l i sh i n g b yclea r an d co n v i n c i n g ev i d e n c e tha t no co m m u n i ty p rop e rt y e x i s te d a t th e d i s s o l u ti o n o f th e m a rri a g e . S e ei d. ( hol di ng t hatappel l antf ai l ed t o t r ace asset s i n savi ngs accoun tl i st ed i n hernam e and absence of such t r aci ng m eantt hatappel l antdi d not m eetherburd e n o f e st abl i shi ng bycl ear a n d e v i d e n c e th a t th e b a l a n c e i n th e a c c o u n t w a sh e r s e p a ra te p ro p e rty ). H avi ng a nal yz ed t he cha r ac t eroft he pr ope rt y, w e n ow t ur n t o t he
v a lu a t io n o ft h e p r o p e r t y . T h e f a c t sb e f o r e u sa r e v e rys im ila rt o t h o s e in O ’ Neal v. O ’ Neal. 6 9 S .W .3 d 3 4 7 (T e x . A p p .— E a s tl a n d 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.). M r. O ’N e a l w a s th e o n l y w i tn e ss a t th e h e a ri n g , a n d h i s te sti m o n yw a s q u i te b ri e f. Id. at348. The t r i alco urtdi vi ded t he part i es ’ pe r so nalpr ope rt y, ca sh , ba nk accoun t s, r et i r em entaccounts , I R A accounts , st o c k s , bon ds, and secur i t i es, a l th o u g h th e re w a sn o e v i d e n c e o f v a l u e . Id. at34 9– 50 . Based upo n t he l ack10

o f ev i d e n c e , th e ap p e l l a te c o u r t c o n c lu d e d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rth a d ab u se d i ts d i s c re ti o n i n th e d i v i s i o n o f th e e s ta te . Id. a t350. H er e, t her e i s a c om pl et e a bs enc e of evi den cet o s upportt he di vi si on of pr ope rt y. W e f i nd no pl ea di ngsorpr ooft o es t abl i sh t he val ue of t he as se t s and debts . W i t hou tt he abi l i t y t o det er m i ne t he si ze oft he com m uni t y pi e, w e can m ak e n o de t er m i nat i on t hatt he sl i ce s aw ar ded t o e ac h s pous e w er e j us tan d ri g h t. B e c a u s e th e re i sn o e v i d e n c e o f v a l u e , th e re i sn o e v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt t he j udgm ent . Conse que nt l y, w e hol d t hatt he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on i n th e d i v i s i o n o f p ro p e rty . See Sandone , 11 6 S . W . 3d at20 8 ( hol di ng t hatt r i al cou rtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on i n m ak i ng pr ope rt y di vi si on w her e t here w asno e v i d e n c e o f v a l u e s ); O ’ Neal, 6 9 S . W .3 d a t 3 5 0 (sa m e ). W e s u s ta i n B a l l ’s second i ssue. I V. C ON C L U S I ON H avi ng s us t ai ned Bal l ’ s se con d i ss ue, w e r eve r sean d r em and .

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: H O LM A N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Nov e m be r6, 2008