Don H . R eav is, Se n io r Jus ti ce (R et.) , Se v enth Cou rtof Appeal s, si tti ng by 1 ass ig nment. NO. 07-07 -034 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL E AU GU ST 25, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MATTER OF THE MA RR IAGE OF LEON AR DO BEN ITEZ, SR . AN D Y OLAN DA C . BE NI TEZ

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 3 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 535- 474; HO NO RA BLE P AU LA LA NE HA RT, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL , J., and REAVIS , S.J. 1 ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Present ing one is sue, appel lan t Y ola nda C . Be nit ezco ntends the tr ial co urt er re d in findi ng thatthe former resi dence w as not t ra nsferred by a pa ro l g ift and subjecti ng it t o th e di s po s i ti on o f t he c ou rt as c om mu ni ty p rop er ty
. W e affi r m. Beca use th e case w as tried w ithou t a jury a nd n eithe r partyrequested the trial court make fin din g s of factand conc lus ion s o f law , a detai led rest atement of the facts and2

ev ide nce is not nece ss ar y . Dur ing thei r mar ri ag e, i n Aug ust1976, the par ti es purchas ed a resi dence at 2712 2 Pl ace, Lubboc k, Tex as, and re si ded t herein unti l they mov ed to nd Hou sto n i n 1995. At tr ial , Y ola nda tes ti fied that she and Leo nardo made a parol g ift of the residen ce to he r son by a forme r ma rriag e. T he parties did no t execute a d eed or make any w ri tten memorand a of the all eg ed g if t butdi d per mit Y ola nda’ s s on to resi de i n the house and pay

the monthl y

i nst all ments on th e first li en as they acc ru ed. At t ri al, Leonardo tes ti fied th at he di d not int end to make a g ift of t he re si dence
. Al thoug h J ason tes ti fied as a w it ness , he w as not a party to the p ro ceedi ng . Among othe r thi ng s, the d ecree prov ide d that Y ola nda fail ed to prov e tha t t he proper ty w as a gi ft to her son, Jason. At the t ime of tr ial , Y ola n d a a n d Leona rd o remaine d the record ow ners o f the proper ty w hic h the tr ial cour t aw arded t o Leona rd o. Standa rd of Rev iew

No Fi ndi ng s o r Con cl usi ons of Law Rul e 296 of the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Proc edure author iz es re q uest s for findi ng s o f fact and conc lus ion s of l aw in a nonj ur y cas e. W here, as here, nei ther party re q uest ed f in d in gs o f

fa c ta n d co n c lu s io n s o f la w a n d a re p o rt e r’ s re c o rd h a s b e e n p r o vid e d , we presu me thatthe trial court foun d all fact questio ns in supp ort of its ju d gm e n ta nd m ust aff ir m the jud g ment on any l eg al theor

y suppor ted bythe ple adi ng s and ev ide nce. Point Loo koutW est, In c. v . W horto n, 742 S.W .2d 277 , 278 (Tex. 1987 ). W hen a reporte r’s re cord has been prov ide d, t he i mpli ed findi ng s may be c hal len g ed for leg al a n d factual in s u f f ic ie n c y “t h e sa m e a s ju ry f in d in gs o r a t ri a l c o u rt ’s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t
. ” R o b e rs o n v. Robinso n, 76 8 S.W .2d 280 , 281 (Tex. 1989 ).3

By her so le is sue, Y ola nda c ontends the tr ial co urt er re d i n findi ng thatthe par ti es did not make a parol g ift of the proper ty
. W e di sag re e. A concl usi on of

law that a g ift w as made m ustbe suppo rt ed byfindi ng s t hat ( 1) the par ti es int ended t o make a g ift:; ( 2) del iv er y of the p ro p e rt y; and ( 3) ac cept ance of the proper ty. How ev er , t he i ntent ion of the d onors i s t he “ pr inc ipa l is sue in deter mini ng w het her a gifthas be en m ade .” In Re Estate of Hamill, 866 S.W .2d 339 , 344 (Tex.App .-- Amar il lo 1993, no pet .)
. In her br ief, Y ola nda does not disc uss the tes ti mony of Leonardo regarding the alleged gifto f t he hou se or d evelop her con ten tion why it did not raise a fact issue as to the inte ntion of the pa rties. Co n s id e ri n g t h e test imo ny of Leo nard o tha t his w ife’s testim ony reg arding a gi f t to he r son w as not true, and beca use it w as the provi nce of the tr ial co urt, as the factfinder , t o resol v e the co nflicts and in co n sis te n cies in the testim ony by

judging the credibility of the wi tne sses an d the w eight t o b e g ive n the ir tes ti mony , seeJone s v . Hutchin son Cou nty, 615 S. W .2d 927 , 932 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 1981, no pet .) , w e c oncl ude t he tr ial co urt di d not err in consi der ing the proper ty par t of the communi ty

es tate and subj ect to div is ion among the part ies . Y ola nda’ s s ole poi nt of er ro r is ov er ru led
. Con seq uentl y , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Don H. Reavi s Seni or Ju sti ce (R et)