C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
RUELNEWBERRY, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
BRI SA NEWBERRY, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 10 -0 00 62 -C V

Appea l from the 171st J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC#2008CM1548)

O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt a pp e a ls a fi na l di vo rc e jud g me nt, arguin gthat th e e vid e nc e at tr ia l w a s le g a lly insufficient to support a f inding of crue lty , leg ally

and fa ctually

insufficient to support a f inding of a du lte ry , a

nd that th e div isi on

of the c omm

un ity e state wa s d isp ro po rt ion ate to h im. Mr. Ruel New

berr y and Ms. B risa Ne wber

ry wer e mar ried on Septembe r 1, 2002. B efor e
marr ia g e , th e y

e nte re d into a

pr e nu pti a l a g re e me nt. Af

te r l ivi ngin T uc so n, Ar izon a fo r s ome y ear s, where Appellee ear ned a Ma ster’s in B usiness Administration, and Appellant worke d as an eng ineer , they

moved to El Paso, Texas after A ppellee’ s father , Victor Villalobos (“ Mr. Villalobos”) off

ere d eac h of them jobs. They owned a home in Arizona and boug ht a sec ond house in El Paso on Oscar Perez Avenue
. Appellee filed for

divorce on Marc h 5, 2008. Appellant filed a g ener al denial, a

nd then a
c ounte rp e tit ion . In h is c ounte rp e tit ion , h e so ug ht a dis pr op or

tio nate div isi on

of the c omm

un ity
e state ba se d o n f

a ult g ro un ds , amon goth e rs . T h e t ri al co urth el d

a h ea ri n g o nth i s m at t er

o nv ar i o u s d at es fr o mM ar ch 2 0 0 9 th ro u gh-2-

September 2009, a

nd at the end of

trial, the cour

t declar ed the pa

rties divorce d. The trial c ourt rende red judg ment on October 6, 2009, enter ing a

judgme nt in final divorce/a nnulment and a final divorce decr ee on January 28, 2010. In its final decr ee, the court g rante d Appellee divorce from Appe llant “on the g rounds of insupportability , adultery and cr uelty .” Upon Appe llant’s
re qu e st, the c ourt

fi le d f ind ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw o n M arc h 8 , 2 01 0 to su pp or t it s jud g me nt. In it s f

ind ing s o f f

a c t, t he tr ia l c ourt

de te rm ine d in

pa rt : 5. The leg itimate ends of the mar riag e betwe en Petitioner and Responde nt had bee n destroy ed bec ause Responde nt, Ruel Newbe rry , committed adultery duringthe marr iag e and be cause Ruel Newbe rry was guilty

of crue l treatment towa

rds B risa Ne wber

ry , which re nders the pa

rties furthe r liv ingtog e the r i ns up po rt a ble and su c h b e havio r b y

Re sp on de nt p re ve nts any rea sonable e x pectation of rec onciliation. I n addition thereto, the marr ia g e of

Pe tit ion e r a

nd Re sp on de nt h a d b e c ome ins up po rt a ble be c a us e of discord a

nd conflict of pe rsonalities that destroyed the leg itimate ends of the mar

riag e re lationship and preve nts any rea sonable e x pectation of rec onciliation. On F e br ua ry 19 , 2 01 0, Ap pe lla

nt f ile d h is n oti c e to a

pp e a l th e c ourt ’s jud g me nt. In his first two issues, Appellant cha lleng es the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the evidenc e to support the adulter y finding and the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence to support the
c ru e lty fi nd ing , whic h w e re the ba se s f or the dis pr op or

tio nate awa

rd of the mart ia l e state g oin gto Appellee
. Whe n r e vie wi ngthe re c or d to de te rm ine wh e the r t he re is l e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to support the judg ment, we e x amine only the evidenc e and inf

ere nces that support the verdic t. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd. , 9 53 S.W. 2d 73 3, 73 8 ( Te x. 19 97 ); Henry v. He nr y , 48 S.W .3d 468, 474 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). I f more tha n a
s ci n t i l l a o f e v i d en ce ex i s t s t o s u p p o rtth e l o we r c o urt ’s fi n d i n g, th e l ega l s u ff i ci en cy ch al l en ge-3-

fails. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. , 9 53 S.W. 2d at 73 8; He nr

y , 8 S.W .3d at 473. “More than a scintilla of evidenc e exists where the e vidence supporting the finding , as a whole, rises to a le vel that would enable rea sonable a nd fair- minded people to diffe r in their conc lusions.” He nr y , 48 S.W .3d at 473, citing Merre ll Dow Pharm., Inc. v. H avner , 9 5 3 S
. W
. 2 d

7 0 6 , 7 1 1 ( T e x . 1 9 9 7 )
. In a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we e x amine all the e vidence in the rec ord, both for a nd ag ainst the lower c ourt’s finding s, and re verse only if it is so aga inst the gr eat we ight of the evidenc e as to be clea rly wrongand unjust. Ortiz v. Jones , 917 S.W .2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996). Appellant asse rts the trial cour t erre d in finding that he committed adultery based only

on Appellee ’s testimony

that he wa s in a room with his high school swe ethea rt with the door close d
and lights of f f or mor e tha n tw e nty min ute s. He c la ims tha

t “ [g ]ive n th e mot ive of

B ri sa to fabr icate a

n adultery claim (g oing thr oug h a divorc e involving the disputed division of thousands of dollars of pr operty

and liabilities) and cir cumstance s under whic h this evidence was a cquire d (j us t be fo re Ap pe lla

nt a nd Ap pe lle e se pa

ra te d) , v e ry little we ig ht s ho uld

be g ive n to thi s sp ars e and nebulous testimony .” Appe llant concludes that beca use the trial c ourt err ed in g ranting Appellee a divorc e on the f ault g round of a dultery , we should re mand this case in or der f or the trial court to re consider its division of the community estate. Adultery can be shown by

circ umstantial evidence
. See M orrison v. Morrison , 713 S.W .2d 377, 380 (Tex.App.--Da llas 1986, writ dism’d). At trial, Appellee testified Appellant
a dmi tte d to he r t

hat w he n h e atte nd e d a

pa rt y at a fr ie nd ’s ho us e , h e we nt i nto a ro om w ithhis high sc hool sweethe art, L iza, and stay ed in there with her with the doors c losed and lig hts off for more than twe nty

minutes. She testified that this happened a fter she and Appe llant had ce ased beingsexually

intimate. Appellant testified that he ne ver did a ny thing wr ongoutside of the-4-

marria g e, but admitted that he view ed pornography online beca

use Appe llee had r efuse d to have sex. W e def

er to the f act f inder’s de termination with reg ard to c redibility and we ight to be g iven their testimony , and conc lude that the evide nce w as leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support the trial court’ s finding of

adultery as a ba sis for the divorc e. SeeT EX .F AM .C ODE ANN . § 6.704(b) (We st 2 00 6) ; see M

orrison , 713 S.W .2d at 380 (c oncludingadultery can be shown by circ umstantial evidence ). In I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt c on te nd s th at App e lle e wa s n ot e nti tle d to a div or c e on

the fa ult g round of c ruelty

beca use the e vidence was leg ally insufficient to support this finding. The sufficie ncy

and we ight of

the evidenc e nec essar

y to prove c ruelty

under the trial court’ s standard of proof must, of nece ssity , be lef t to the sound discretion of the trie r of f act. In re M

arriage of Rice , 96 S.W .3d 642, 648 (Tex.App.--Te x arka na 2003, no pet.) . We shall not dist urb the trial court’s f inding of crue lty absent a buse of discr etion. Id . at 648. In a divorc e proc eeding , one party ’s testimony

may alone be sufficie nt to support the judgment. He nr y , 48 S.W .3d at 474 (findinghusband’s testimony , by itself, would support trial court’ s judgme nt and there fore no
a bu se of dis c re tio n) ; Ingram v. I

ngram , 376 S.W .2d 888, 888–89 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1964, no writ)(w ife’s unc orrobor ated testimony satisfies test for suf

ficienc y ). Appellant ar g ues that the c ourt err ed in conc luding that he eng ag ed in “c ruelty” base d on the sole evide nce in the f

orm of Appe llee’s testimony that “she c aug ht Ruel on severa l occa sions viewingpornog raphic materia ls and masturbating ” as he did so. He ar g ues that this conduct at most showed that he wa s suffer ing f rom a psycholog ical condition or disorde r, which r equire d pr of e ssi on a l tr e atme nt, and

no t th at he “ wi llf

ull y inf lic te d s uf fe ri ngon his wi fe .” Ac c or din gto Appellant, the e vidence does not support a findingthat he eng ag ed in cr uel treatment of Appellee-5-

be c a us e the re wa s n oth ing“ wi llf ul” a bo ut h is c on du c t. A

pp e lla nt’ s c omp la int , a g a in, g oe s to fault as a basis for the dispropor

tionate prope rty

division. Al tho ug h in fr e qu e nt s inc e the int ro du c tio n o f n o- fa

ult div or c e , a

Te xas c ourt

may sti ll g rant a divorce on the g round of c ruel tre atment. He nr y , 48 S.W .3d at 473. A spouse’ s conduct rises to the leve l of crue l treatment whe n his or her c onduct re nders the c ouple’s living tog ether insupportable. Id ., citing T EX .F AM .C ODE ANN . § 6. 00 2; Finn v. Finn , 185 S.W .2d 579, 582 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1945, no wr it). “Insupportable” means “ incapa ble of be ing bor

ne, unendura ble, insuffe rable , intolerable.” He nr y , 48 S.W .3d at 473-74, citing Cantw ell v. Can twe ll , 2 17 S.W. 2d

45 0, 45 3 ( Te x.Civ .App .- -E l Pa so 19 48 , wri t di sm’ d) . M e re dis a g re e me nts or triflingmatters will not justi fy g rantinga divorc e for

crue lty
. Shankles v . Shankles , 445 S.W. 2d 80 3, 80 7 ( Te x.Civ .App .- -Wa c o 1 96 9, no wr it) . I f, fo r i ns tanc e , th e c omp la ini ngsp ou se suffe rs only

nervousne ss or embar

rassment, a

trial court may

not gr ant the divorc e on the ground of cr uelty
. Golden v. G olden , 2 38 S.W. 2d 61 9, 62 1 ( Te x.Civ .App .- -Wa c o 1 95 1, no wr it) . Abu se need not be limit ed to bodily injury ; nonetheless, phy sical abuse will support gr antinga divorc e
on crue lty g rounds. W

aheed v . W

aheed, 423 S.W .2d 159, 160 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1967, no
wr it) ; Cote v . Co te , 404 S.W .2d 139, 140 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1966, writ dism’d); Blac k bu rn v . B lac k

bu rn , 1 63 S.W. 2d

25 1, 25 5 ( Te x.Civ .App .- -A mari llo 19 42 , n o wri t) . A c ts
occur ringafte r sepa

ration may

be used to support a

finding of cr

uelty
. Redwine v. R edwine , 198 S.W .2d 472, 473 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1946, no writ). Adultery may be conside red to be crue lty sufficie nt to support the gr ant of a divorce on that g round. W

ink lev . W ink le , 9 51 S.W. 2d

80 , 9 0- 1 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Cor pu s Chri sti 19 97 , wri t denied) (conc luding e vidence of husband’ s adultery could support trial cour

t’s finding of cr

uelAppellee also submitted ex hibits i ndicatingcookies of por nog raphic websites fr om the 1 household desktop computer , which indicate d that these mate rials wer e ac cesse d befor e and a fter their sepa ration. -6- treatment). The a ccumulation of se vera l differ ent ac ts of crue lty may constitute sufficient g rounds on which to g rant a divorce
. Hester v . Hester , 413 S.W .2d 448, 450 (Tex.Civ.App.-- Tyle r 1 96 7, no wr it) ; Emerson v . Emerson , 4 09 S.W. 2d 89 7, 90 0 ( Te x.Civ .App .- -C or pu s Chri sti 19 66 , n o wri t) ; W

auer v. W auer , 299 S.W .2d 719, 721 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1957, no writ). At trial, Appellee testified that she c aug ht Appellant viewingpornog raphic materia ls on television and on the Interne t, and masturbatingto them numerous times since 2003. Appe llee testified that when she confr onted Appellant a bout his actions, he explained that they wer e
cause d by her unw illingness to eng ag e in sexual intercourse with him as freque ntly as he ha d wanted. A fter a

ttempting to eng ag e in counse ling with fa mily thera pists in Tucson and El Paso, f o r a t i m e Ap p e l l e e b e l i e v e d

th atAp p e l l an th a d

s t o p p e d h i s h a b i to f v i e w i n gp o r

n o g r a p h y. 1 Despite their r econc iliation efforts, howe ver, A ppellant continued to view por nog raphy , and admitted to Appellee that he had a problem with beingaddicted to view ing por nog raphy . After his admission, Appellant denied viewingany more pornography , but Appellee later discove red a new laptop in his possession on which Appe llant cre ated a new e -mail addre ss, and used a n alias to communicate with anothe r fe male. In one of his e- mails to thi s individual, he indicated that he and Appe llee we re no long er in a relationship any

more, a nd that he wa s “ava ilable.” We find that this evidence , coupled with the e vidence reg ardingAppellant’s involvement with L iza, were leg ally sufficie nt to support the trial court’s f inding of crue lty
. Se e W

ink le , 951 S.W .2d at 91 (c on c lud inge vid e nc e of

hu sb and ’s a du lte ry

c ou ld s up po rt

tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingof

c ru e l treatment). As such, the tria l court did not err in its finding of c ruelty

as a ba sis of fault, and we-7-

c on c lud e the c ourt

did no t e rr in a wa rd inga dis pr op or

tio nate sh are of

the mari ta l e state to Appellee on both crue lty

and adulter

y as base s of fa

ult. Accor dingly , we ove rrule I ssues One a nd Two. In I ssue Thre e, Appe llant argues that eve n if Appellee proper ly proved that she was
e nti tle d to the div or c e on

fa ult g ro un ds , th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in its div isi on

of the c omm

un ity estate be cause it was not a “just and r ight division.” We revie w most appea lable issues in a family law ca se, such a s proper

ty division i ncident to divorce or par tition, conservatorship, visitation, and child support, under an a buse-of -discre tion standard. Ga rc ia v . G arc ia , 170 S.W. 3d 64 4, 64 8 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 20 05 , n o p e t.) . T he te st f or an a bu se of dis c re tio n is whether the trial cour

t acted w ithout refer ence to any g uiding r ules and princ iples. Ga rc ia , 170 S.W. 3d at 64 9; Downer v. Aquam arine Operators, Inc
. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985). In revie winga trial c ourt’s division of a marital e state, it is our duty to presume that the tr ial court prope rly

exercised its discre tion. Chafino v. Chafi no , 228 S.W .3d 467, 473 (Tex.App.--El Pa so 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; Burney v . Burney , 225 S.W .3d 208, 215 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006, no pet.)
. Thus , th e pa

rt y c ha lle ng ingthe div isi on

be ars the burd e n o f d e mon str atin gfr om t he e vid e nc e in the re cord that the trial court’ s division was so unjustand unfa ir as to be a n abuse of

discretion. Chafino , 2 28 S.W. 3d

at 47 3– 74 ; Burney , 225 S.W .3d at 215. Ap pe lla nt a sse rt s th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

div idi ngthe c omm

un ity e state betwee n him and Appellee disproportionately . He a rgues that the c ourt order ed him to pay $51,756.66, which re prese nts approxim ately 95.1 perc ent of the c ommunity debt, wher eas Appellee only

had to pay

$2,569, or appr ox imately 4.9 perc ent of the de bt. As for a war d of community

proper ty , Appellant conte nds that while the cour t awar ded Appe llee an a

mount over-8-

$80,000, it awar ded him only $11,000. The Te x as F amily

Code requir es that a tria l court “sha ll order a division of the estate of the par ties in a manner

that the cour

t deems just and rig ht, havingdue re g ard f or the rights of
eac h party

and any children of

the marr iag e.” T EX .F AM .C ODE ANN . § 7.001. Although the division m ust be equitable, a trial court ne ed not divide community proper ty equally
. Chafino , 22 8 S. W.3 d at 47 4; Chacon v. Chacon , 222 S.W .3d 909, 915 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.)
. We employ

a two-pr ong ed test in deter mining whe ther the tria l court abuse d its discretion and inquire: (1) did the trial court have suff icient information upon which to e x erc ise discre tion;
and (2 ) d id t he tr ia l c ourt

a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

makin ga pr op e rt y div isi on tha t w a s ma nif e stl y
un j u s to r un f a i r ? Chafino , 2 28 S.W. 3d at 47 2; Burney , 2 25 S.W. 3d at 21 5; Chacon , 222 S.W .3d
at 91 5. In ma

kin gthe div isi on , th e tr ia l c ourt wa s a uth or ize d to c on sid e r a

va ri e ty of fa c tor s, which our jurisprude nce c ommonly ref ers to as the “

Mu rff ” fa ctors. Mu rff

v . M ur ff , 615 S.W .2d 69 6, 69 9 ( Te x. 19 81 ); Ga rc ia , 170 S.W .3d at 653. Amongthe var iety of “ Mu rff ” fa ctors that the trial court may

consider in dividingthe marital e state ar e: (1) the spouses’ ca pacities a nd abilities; (2) bene fits which the par ty not at fault would have derive d from the c ontinuation of the marria g e; (3) busine ss opportunities; (4) relative phy sical conditions; (5) re lative financ ial conditions; (6) disparity

of ag es; (7) size of sepa

rate estates; (8) the nature of the prope rty ; and (9) dispar ity

of ea rningcapa city
. Mu rff

, 615 S.W .2d at 699. “We def er to the tria l court’s d et erm i n at i o no f t h e c re d i b i l i ty o f t h e w i tn es s es ’ t es t i m o n y an d d i s turb th e t ri al co urt ’s fi n d i n gs only in a ca se of c lear

abuse of discretion.” Burney , 2 25 S.W. 3d at 21 5; se e Mu rff

, 615 S.W .2d at 700 (a bsent an a buse of discr etion, the trial cour t’s proper ty division wil l not be disturbed on appea l).-9-

The Te x as F amily

Code establishes a pr esumption that property possessed by

either spouse duringor at the dissolution of marria g e is community proper ty . T EX .F AM .C ODE ANN . § 3 .0 03 (a )( Wes t 20 06 ); Sprick v . Sprick, 25 S.W .3d 7, 17 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1999, pet. de nied). The c ommunity

proper ty presumption applies not only to assets but to liabili ties, as well. Sprick, 25 S.W .3d at 17. Ther efor e, ther e is a pre sumption t hat debt ac quired by either spouse during marria g e wa s procur ed on the ba sis of community cre dit. Sprick, 25 S.W .3d at 17, citing W ie rzc hu la v . W

ie rzc hu la , 623 S.W .2d 730, 732 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ). An a sset purcha sed on borr owed f unds is presumptively

community

in char acte r, and borrowe d funds that ar e utiliz ed for living expenses should be tre ated the sa me. Sprick, 25 S.W .3d at 17. The spouse attempting to r ebut these pr esumptions bears the bur den of pr oof and the degree of proof

require d is clear

and convinc ing e vidence . T EX .F AM .C ODE ANN . § 3.003(b); Sprick, 25 S.W .3d at 17. Pr op e rt y owne d o r c la ime d b y

a sp ou se be fo re marr ia g e or a c qu ir e d a ft e r m arr ia g e by g if t, devise, or de scent is that spouse’s se parate prope rty . T EX .C O N ST . a rt . X VI , § 15 ; T EX .F AM .C ODE ANN . § 3. 00 1( 1) (2 ). As to s e pa rate pr op e rt

y , th e tr ia l c ourt

is w ith out a

uth or ity to d ive st a

sp ou se of it. Burney , 2 25 S.W. 3d at 21 5; see Came ron v. Cameron , 6 4 1 S. W. 2 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 5
- 1 6 ( T e x. 19 82 ); Langston v. Langst on , 82 S.W .3d 686, 688 (Tex.App.--Ea stland 2002, no pet.)(tria l court may not divest a spouse of se parate prope rty and aw ard it to the other spouse ). In this case, the tr ial court e ntere d the followingpertinent finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law r e g ard ingthe dis tr ibutio n o f t he mari ta l e state s: F ind ings of

F act

. . .-10-

6. Br isa New

berr y had sepa rate proper

ty at the time the divorc e petition was fi le d a nd at th e tim e of

the fi na l he ari nga s f

oll ow s:
a. a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse motor vehicle . . .; b. a limited partner ship interest in Villalobos L .P.;
c. a l i m i t edp artn er s h i p i n t er es ti na p artn er s h i p kn o wn as Bl u e R an ge Phy sician Mana g ement Servic es, L .P.; d. he r e ng a g e me nt r ing , a g a s g ri ll, stu dy

fu rn iture , a n a rm c ha ir , a tr e a dmi ll, a fr eezer , and a toy

poodle named “ L enny .” 7. Ruel Newbe rry

had sepa rate proper

ty at the time of the f

iling of the div or c e and

at th e tim e of

the fi na l he ari nga s f

oll ow s:
a. a 2001 F ord Explorer motor vehicle
. . . 8. Duringthe marr iag e, Petitioner and Responde nt acquire d the following proper ty all of which is community proper ty with the fair ma

rket va lues as shown below: Real Estate : 4364 Cholla Deser

t Trail, Tucson Ar izona Fa ir Marke t Value: $208,000.00 + Outstanding Mortg ag e: $137,670.00 (a s of Marc h 5, 2009) Outstanding Home Equity L oan: $74,116.00 (a s of Marc h 5, 2009) At the t im e of the last fi nal h earing of S eptem ber 11, 2009, this hous e had b ee n f o re cl o s ed b y th e l en d er a s a re s u l t o f d ef a u l t o n th e mo rt g a g e a n d h o me e quit y lo an. 728 Osca r Pere z, El P aso, Texas Fa ir Marke t Value: $264,380.00 Outstanding Mortg ag e (Me t L ife): $209,429.00 ( as of Ma rch 5, 2009) Outstanding Home Equity L oan (1 Tenne ssee B ank): $40,627.00

st At the t im e of the last fi nal h earing of S eptem ber 11, 2009, this hous e had been posted f

or forec losure M ot orVe hic le s: 2003 Mitsubis hi Galant Fa ir Marke t Value: $6,175.00-11-

Ca sh & Ac c ount s wit h F ina nc ialIns ti tu ti ons : Wells Farg o CheckingAcc ount ending8994 $318.00 Wells Farg o Savings A ccount e nding 8780 $10.00 Wells Farg o PMA CheckingAcc ount ending7279 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $14,201.14 Wells Farg o Advantag e Chec king A ccount e nding 2981 B alanc e as of 8/31/08 $0.00 Wells Farg o Comp Advantag e Ac count ending0473 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $0.00 Wells Farg o Comp Advantag e Ac count ending0170 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $2,439.20 Wells Farg o Money

Marke t Account e nding 5932 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $0.00 Wells Farg o Money

Marke t Account e nding 2999 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $0.00 Wells Farg o Money

Marke t Account e nding 7346 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $75.08 Wells Farg o Money

Marke t Account e nding 2601 Ba lance as of 8/31/08 $0.00 Wells Farg o Savings A ccount e nding 9867 Ba lance as of 1/31/08 $2,437.34

(Mr. Ne wber

ry closed a ccount a

nd took balance ) Re tir e me nt B e ne fi ts: Ray theon Saving s & Investment Plan Ba lance on 3/6/07 $32,362.17 (Mr. Ne wber ry rolled into a F idelity

I RA) Fidelity I RA balanc e on 12/31/07 $33,947.17 (Mr. Ne wber

ry took balance ) Hou se hol d F ur nish ing s & F ixt ur e s: Please re fer

to the Ex hibit ‘A’ . . . for the list of property which wa s still located at the Os c ar P e re z re sid e nc e at th e tim e of the se pa ratio n o f t he pa rt ie s a nd su bje c t to th e c o n tr o l o f

M r . N e wb e r

r y. Ad d i t i o n al l y , M r. Ne wb erry wa s i np o s s es s i o no f t h e f o l l o wi n g: Television, Projector, Mr s. Newbe rry ’s I BM L aptop, Dig ital Camera ( $4,000.00) Tande m Bike ( $300.00) 3 c ats M rs . Ne wb erry

wa s i np o s s es s i o no f t h e f o l l o wi n g: Desktop computer , external drive, 3 in 1 printer , Television ($2,000+ ) 9. Duringthe marr iag e, Petitioner and Responde nt incurre d the following debts and liabilities, with the balance s on eac h beingas of the date shown below: Lia bili ti e s: Wells Farg o Education
. . . Ba lance on 8/21/08 $7,794.29 Panhandle- Plains S tudent L oan . . . Ba lance on 5/29/08 $17,155.20-12-

Ba nk of Amer ica ( L ine of Cre dit) . . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $21,069.00 (This d ebt was in curre d by Respon dent, Ruel Newberry, unbekn own st to P etitioner , Brisa Newberry) Citi financ ial . . . [Ashley Fur niture] Ba lance on 3/5/09 $3,641.00 AT& T Universa l Card . . . [Mit subishi Galant] Balanc e on 8/31/08 $3,199.11 Kohl’s Credit Card
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $390.00 Sam’s Club Credit Card
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $352.00 HSBC Master car d
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $0.00 The Roomstore Credit
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $637.00 Sears Cre dit Card
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $2,247.00 New Y ork & Company
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $794.00 Ex press Cre dit Card
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $396.00 Old Navy Credit Card
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $0.00 Macy ’s
. . . Ba lance on 3/5/09 $0.00 10. Petitioner, Br isa New berr y , had incur

red $30,970.27 dollar s in attorney ’s fee s for he r re prese ntation by L arr y H. Schwar

tz, which fees a

re rea sonable a

nd nece ssary

for the r epre sentation of B risa Ne wber ry . Marlene Gonzalez repre sented Ruel Ne wber ry and both attorne y s, by sti pu latio n, pr e se nte d th e ir atto rn e y ’s fe e s to the Court by a g re e me nt. 11. Petitioner and Respondent both ea rn appr ox imately

the same a

mount of m o n e y.

. . .

Conclusion s of L aw

. . . 4
. Al l p ro p erty

b el o n gs t o th e c o m mun i ty es t at e, ex ce p tfo r t h e f

o l l o wi n g, which belong s to the respe ctive par ties’ sepa rate estate: S e p ar at e P r o p e rty o f

B r i s a N e wb e r r y:
a. a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse . . .; b. a limited partner ship interest in Villalobos L .P.;
c. a l i m i t edp artn er s h i p i n t er es ti na p artn er s h i p kn o wn as Bl u e R an ge Phy sician Mana g ement Servic es, L .P.;-13-

d. he r e ng a g e me nt r ing , a g a s g ri ll, stu dy

fu rn iture , a n a rm c ha ir , a tr e a dmi ll, a fr eezer , and a toy

poodle named “ L enny .” S e p ar at e P r o p e rty o f

R u e l N e wb e r

r y:
a. a 2001 F ord Explorer . . . 5. A division of the proper ty of Petitioner and Responde nt effe cted by the fi na l ju dg me nt i s a

jus t and ri g ht d ivi sio n, havin gdu e re g ard fo r t he ri g hts of ea ch par

ty irrespe ctive of the char acte rization of any item of proper

ty as either c ommunity

or sepa rate . 6. The followingis a just and rig ht divisi on of the c ommunity assets of the pa rt ie s: T o B r i s a N e wb e r r y: 4364 E. Cholla Deser

t Trail, Tucson, Ar izona 85706 At the t im e of the last fi nal h earing of S eptem ber 11, 2009, this hous e had b ee n f o re cl o s ed b y th e l en d er a s a re s u l t o f d ef a u l t o n th e mo rt g a g e a n d h o me e quit y lo an. 728 Osca r Pere z, El P aso, Texas 79932 At the t im e of the last fi nal h earing of S eptem ber 11, 2009, this hous e had been posted f

or forec losure. Household g oods in her possession [A series of household items follow] fi ft y pe rc e nt ( 50 %) of

the fu nd s o n d e po sit

at:
a . Wel ls F arg o B ank PMAc he c kin ga c c ount n umb e r e nd ing72 79 , Sa id acc ount bear ing a

balanc e of $14,201.14 a s of August 31, 2008 b. Wel ls F arg o B ank Com p A dv anta g e c he c kin ga c c ount e nd ing04 73 , Sa id acc ount bear ing a

balanc e of $0.00 a s of August 31, 2008 Al l f un ds on de po sit at:
a. Wells Farg o Comp Advantag e che ckingacc ount number ending8994 b. Wells Farg o Ba

nk Money

Marke t Savings a ccount number ending8780-14-

c. Wells Farg o Ba

nk Money

Marke t Savings a ccount number ending7346 fifty perc ent (50%) of RUEL

NEWBERRY’s re tirement bene fits in Ray theon Savings a nd Investment Plan (said ac count bea ringa bala

nce of $32,362.17 as of Marc h 6, 2007), wife ’s portion being$16,181.08 Vi lla lob os L .P. B lue Rang e Phy sic ian M ana g e me nt S e rv ic e s, L .P. The followingpets: [3 cats and toy poodle] T o R u e l N e wb e r

r y: Household g oods in her [sic] possession [A series of household items follow] fi ft y pe rc e nt ( 50 %) of

the fu nd s o n d e po sit

at:
a . Wel ls F arg o B ank PMAChe c kin ga c c ount n umb e r e nd ing72 79 , Sa id acc ount bear ing a

balanc e of $14,201.14 a s of August 31, 2008 b. Wells Farg o Ba

nk Comp Advantag e che ckingacc ount number ending 0473, Said acc ount bear ing a balanc e of $0.00 a s of August 31, 2008 Al l f un ds on de po sit at:
a. Wells Farg o Savings A ccount number ending9867 50% of RUEL

NEWBERRY’s bene fits rec eived f rom the Ray

theon Saving s and Investment Plan 2003 Mitsubis hi Galant . . . 7. The followingis a just and rig ht divisi on of the de bts, liabili ties and ob lig atio ns of

the pa rt ie s: T o B r i s a N e wb e r r y: [her student loan; Roomst ore a ccount; $1,000 of Citifinancia l (Ashley Fur niture Debt) . . . Said a ccount be aringa bala nce of $3,641 as of Ma

rch 5, 2009; Kohl’s a c c ount; Sam’ s Cl ub a c c ount; Se ars a c c ount; Ne w Y or k & Com pa ny a c c ount; Ex press a ccount; Old Navy acc ount; Macy ’s ac count; the balanc e due on the-15-

parties’ 2006 I RS Feder al Income Tax Return] T o R u e l N e wb e r

r y: [W ells Fa rg o Education Financia l Services ( Student L oan); Panha ndle Plains Student L oan; B ank of A merica (line of c redit); $2,641 of the Citi financ ial (A sh le y F ur nit ur e De bt) a c c ount; AT & T Univ e rs a l Ca rd a c c ount] 8. Eac h party

shall pay their own re spective attorney ’s fe es, costs and expenses of this suit . . . . Appellant conte nds that there w as no just divisi on of the c ommunity estate a ssets and liabiliti es in the pre sent ca se. He specific ally contests that the prope rty awa rd wa s dis pr op or tio nate be c a

us e at th e tim e of

his la st i nv e nto ry , o nly

$8 ,0 00 re ma ine d in

the Wel ls Fa rg o PMA chec king a ccount e nding in number 7279, half of which was a war ded to Appellee ; all of the funds in Wells Far g o chec king a ccount e nding in number 8994, which had a

balanc e of $ 7 9 4
. 5 3 as o f F eb ru ary

1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , wa s aw ar d edt o Ap p el l ee ; al l o f t h e f un d s i nW el l s Fargo
savin g s a c c ount n

umb e r 8 78 0, wh ic h h a d a ba lanc e of

$1 0 o n Aug

us t 31 , 2 00 8, wa s a

wa rd e d to Ap pe lle e ; and

fi na lly , a ll o f t

he fu nd s in Wel ls F arg o mo ne y

mark e t sa

vin g s a c c ount e nd ingin number 7346, whic h the Dec ree listed as havinga bala nce of $75.08, was a

war ded to Appellee
. He a sserts that the for eg oing a war ds amount to a total of $4,879.61 in bank funds, a nd when
a dd e d to $1 6, 97 3. 58 , whic h c on sti tut e d h a lf of his Ray the on 40 1( k) fu nd , a nd the re sid e nc e in El Paso which had a

net equity

of $14,324, which w ere all awa rded to Appe llee as w ell, the total pr op e rt y awa rd to h e r s umm e d u

p to $5 3, 15 0. 77 . H e c la ims tha t in c on tr a st, the c ourt

on ly
awa rded him half of

the Wells Farg o PMA chec king a ccount e nding in number 7279 ($4,000) plus all of the funds in Wells Farg o saving s acc ount number 9867, which at the time of the final divorce decr ee he ld no funds. Howeve r, he c oncede s he wa s awa rded the 2003 Mitsubis hi-16-

Galant, whic h had a ne t equity value of $3,500, and so he r ece ived a total aw ard of $7,500. We first note that in its findings of fa ct and c onclusions of law, the tria l court noted that contra ry to Appellant’s cla ims, the W ells Fa rg o saving s acc ount endingin number 9867 that wa s
awa rd e d to him

c on ta ine d $ 2, 43 7. 34 . T he c ourt sp e c if ic a lly de te rm ine d th at App e lla

nt c los e d h is
acc ount and took the entire balanc e in it during marria g e. More over, the court a lso found that the Wells Farg o chec king a ccount e nding in number 8994, which wa s awa

rded to Appe llee,
c on ta ine d o nly

$3 18 , n ot t

he $7 94 .5 3 amou

nt a sse rt e d b y

Ap pe lla nt. Appellant also a

rgues that the trial c ourt err ed in its divisi on of community liabiliti es. He
a sse rt s th at w hil e the c ourt or de re d h im t o p ay

$5 1, 75 6. 66 in c omm

un ity de bts , th e c ourt

on ly order ed Appe llee to pay

$2,569. Contrary

to Appellant’s cla im, our review of the re cord ind ic ate s th at th e c ourt

or de re d App e lle e to p ay

a pp ro ximate ly

$1 4, 59 5 in

c omm un ity de bts
. Moreove r, in its findings of f act a nd conclusions of law , the cour t determined that Appellant initiated the Ba

nk of Amer ica line of

cre dit, and incurre d this $21,069 debt without Appellee’s knowledg e. In this case, the tr ial court’s division of the c ommunity estate w as supported by

evidenc e of su bs tanti ve and

pr ob ativ e c ha

ra c te r, and

so we c on c lud e the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion upon this basis. Se e Ga rc ia , 170 S.W .3d at 649. B oth Appellant and Appe llee testified bef

ore the trial court. The trial court he ard te stimony that the Ray

theon 401(k) retire ment acc ount in Appellant’s name, which was va lued at $32,362.17, no long er e x isted beca use Appe llant had withdrawn all of the funds out of this ac count duringmarria g e. Appe llee te sti fi e d th at App e lla

nt a lso wi thd

re w $ 2, 43 7. 34 fr om t

he Wel ls F arg o s avin g s a c c ount e nd ingin
a c c ount n umb e r 9 86 7. Th e c ourt

fu rt he r h e ard te sti mony

fr om A pp e lle e tha

t sh e did no t r e c a llHoweve r, Appe llee admitted that she r emoved c erta in items, such as a c omputer and a 2 printer, f rom the Osca

r Pere z residence to furnish her ne w apa rtment. Th e re c or d s ho ws that by Au g us t 20 09 , th e outst and ingI RS de bt a mou nte d to 3 $8,779.89, indicatingthat a portion of the or igina l balance had bee n paid off. -17- initiating a line of

cre dit with Bank of A merica ; that beca use she moved out of

the Osca r Pere z residenc e she sha

red w ith Appellant, she had to spend mor e than $20,000 on f urnishings a

nd supplies for her

new a partment. Appellee also testified that her brother, L

uis, and her f

ather , 2 Mr. Villalobos, decide d to fire Appe llant from their c ompany ’s employ beca use of a lleg ations that Appellant stole computer s from the c ompany . Mr. Villalobos, Appellee ’s father,
corr oborate d this testim ony at trial. The tr ial court he ard A ppellee’ s acc usations reg arding Ap pe lla nt’ s e nc ounte rs wi th o the r f e ma le s a nd argua ble a dd ic tio n to po rn og ra phy duri ngthe ir marria g e. Appe llant admitted that he viewe d pornog raphic materia ls from time to tim e online, but denied he did a

ny thing wr ongoutside of the mar riag e. Ac cordingto Appellant, Appellee made f reque nt and unnec essar

y expenditures, and he te stified that he wa s unfamiliar with seve ral
cre dit card de bts they

owed at the time of trial, includingthose from Chase , Citi bank, and the Roo mst or e . H e c la ime d th at th e lin e of c re dit fr om B ank

of Am e ri c a wa s u se d to pa

y c omm un ity de bts of bo th p art ie s. Withre g a

rd s to his Ray

the on 40 1( k) pla

n, he te sti fi e d h e ha d $ 4, 23 2. 12 in this plan shortly

afte r marr

ying A ppellee, but on c ross-examination, he re veale d that he withdre w the $32,362.17 from this ac count af ter he separ ated f

rom Appellee and wa s fired f rom his job at Mount W est Fa

mily Hea lth Center. Appellant a lso testified that he had r ece ived a letter from the I RS i ndicatinghe owe d $17,805 in tax liabiliti es, but Appellee admitted that this outst anding debt belong ed to her , and that she ha d enter ed into a settlement a g ree ment and made
arr ang ements with the I RS t o pay this off in installments. Acc ordingto Appellant, he pa id for 3-18-

Appellee ’s MBAdeg ree from community funds, but Appellee testified that her fathe r paid for her e ducation. De spite Appellant’s testimony that he fa ced f

inancial diff

iculties since the separ ation, opposing c ounsel elicited his testimony that he had be en travelingacr oss the country since then, a

nd that his credit re port was possibly unaff ecte d by the outstanding I RS obl iga tion. Appellant also testified that he re moved ce rtain per sonal proper ty from the Osc ar Per ez residenc e. F inally , the trial cour t hear d argument by

Appellee ’s counse l that although the Tucson pr op e rt y wa s f or e c los e d o n th e fi rs t but no t th e se c on d li e n, and tha t th e Os c ar P e re z pr op e rt

y was not for eclose d, Appellee ’s father wa s willing to assist her in savingboth properties. Def err ing to the tr ial court’s de termination on witness cre dibilit y , and base d upon our re view of the re c or d, we do no t f

ind the tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n th at w ill a llo w u s to dis tur b it s finding s. Burney , 2 25 S.W. 3d at 21 5; se e Mu rff

, 615 S.W .2d at 700 (a

bsent an a buse of discretion, the tria l court’s prope rty division wil l not be disturbed on appe al). Ac cording ly , we
overr ule I ssue Thre e. Havingoverr

uled Appellant’ s issues presente d for r eview, w e af firm the trial c ourt’s jud g me nt. September 14, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.