i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 92 5- CV Joe G ilb e rt YOUNG , J r., Appellant
v . Jami e Mic he lle L e mon s YOUNG ,

Appellee Fr om the 57th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI -03796 Honora ble Ba rbar a Ha nson Nellermoe , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: September 2, 2009 AFF I RMED J oe Gilber

t Young , J r. appe als the trial cour t’s judgme nt gr anting a divorc e and dividing the
c omm un ity e state . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . J oe and Jamie wer e mar

ried on Mar ch 15, 2002. On F ebrua ry 17, 2004, J oe wa s incarc erated and cur rently rema ins in prison. J am i e fi led for divor ce in 2008; Joe subsequently filed a counter petition for di vorce . After a bench t rial at which both J oe and Jamie appe are d and testified,04
- 08
- 00 92 5- CV

1 ... T he f

o l l o w i ng i ssue s we re n o t a d e q u ately b rief ed an d t he refo re w e d ec l i ne t o ad d ress them : “(3 ) A l so A pp el l ant ’ s s po us e obt ai ned n umer ous cr edi t ca r ds i n App el l ant ’ s na me wi t hout t hi s au t hor i zat i on wh i l e h e has been i n ca r ce r at ed an d r an u p debt on t h em t h at i s n ot h i s ; ( 4) Fr au d on t h e commu n i t y ; ( 5) W as t i n g of c ommun i t y a s s et s by a s pou s e; ( 6) Appel l an t n ev er w ai v ed h i s r i g h t s t o a j u r y t r i al ; ( 7) Act u al f r au d c ommi t t ed by s pou s e; ( 9) Spou s e made d e fam a to ry a n d false c h a rg e s w h ic h w e re o f a p riv ileg e d n a tur e ; a n d ( 1 1 ) A p p e llan t w a s n o t allo w e d to giv e c o m p le te te stim o n y b y the T ria l C o u rt. ”

2 ... T he ot her t wo r el at ed i s s ues ar e: “ ( 8) A j udgment was r ender ed i n di s r ega r d of t he expr es s ed [ s i c] provi s i ons of

t he D i vor ce St at ut e; an d (10) B i as ed an d part i al r ul i ng by Ju dge B ar bara N el l er mo e. ”

- 2- the trial cour

t gr anted the divor ce a

nd divided what re m ai n ed of the c ommunity proper ty . J oe, appea ring pro se, r aises ele ven issues on appe al. Many of Joe’s co m plaints are not br iefe d, 1 a n d there fore we ne ed not consider them on appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8. 1( i) ; Stran ge v . Co nt’ l Ca s. Co. , 126 S.W .3d 676, 677-78 (Te x . App.—Dallas 2004, pe t. de nied) (holding that a pro se litigant is held to the same standa rds as lice nsed attorne y s and t h at an ap pellate issue unsupporte d by
ar g u me n t o r c it a ti o n to an y le g a l a u th o r it y p r e s e n ts n o th in g f

o r th e a p p e ll a te c o u rt t o r e v ie w )
. We
are a lso un a

ble to a dd re ss Joe’ s c omp la int that Jami e fa ile d to de liv e r c e rt a in p e rs on a l pr op e rt y to his mot he r a s or de re d in the div or c e de c re e be c a us e Joe fa ile d to fi le a

mot ion fo r e nf or c e me nt w ith the trial court as contemplated by section 9.009 of the F amily Code. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 9.009 (Ve rnon 2006). Ac cording ly , these issues ar e over ruled. Th e re ma ind e r o f Joe ’s c omp la int s r e la te to t he tr ia l c ourt ’s div isi on

of the c om mu nity proper ty , “m ai n l y t h e settlement fr om the buy back of [J oe’s] home by

San Antonio Housing Authority and K.B . Homes.” 2 The trial court has broad discretion in dividing the mar ital estate, a nd we presume the trial court properly exercised its discre tion. Mu rff v . M ur ff , 615 S.W .2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981). The tria l court is require d to divide the estate of t he parties in a manner t hat is “just and rig ht,” having due re g ard f or the rig hts of eac h party . T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 7.001 (Ve rnon 2006); T ener y v. Te ne ry , 9 3 2 S. W. 2 d 2 9 , 3 0 ( T e x. 1 9 9 6 )
. T h e p arty c o mp la in in g o f th e tr ia l c ourt’s04
- 08
- 00 92 5- CV

- 3- pr op e rt y div isi on mus t de mon str a te fr om t he e vid e nc e in the re c or d that the div isi on wa s so un jus t that the trial court abused its discretion. Prague v. Prague , 190 S.W .3d 31, 40 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied) . The trial c ourt may order an unequa l divisi on of mart ial proper ty when a
rea sonable ba sis ex ists for doing so. Id. at 41. We consider e very rea sonable pre sumption i n favor of the prope r exercise of discre tion by the trial court in dividing the community estate. Mu rff

, 615 S.W. 2d a t 69 9; Prague , 190 S.W .3d at 41. At tr ia l, Jamie te sti fi e d th a t Joe sto pp e d w or kin g in M ay 20 03 and the re fo re sh e wa s le ft to pay the couple’ s bills us ing mone y from her s al ar y al o n e. She further stated that Joe used illega l drug s and incurr ed many

debts, which she then took out loans to pa y . J amie later

sold the house she and Joe owned tog ether , with J oe’s pe rmission, for $93,000, which ne tted pro ce eds totaling
a pp ro xima te ly

$2 8, 75 0. She us e d th a t mo ne y to p ay of f t he c ou ple ’s de bt, inc lud ingc re dit c ard bil ls, loan pay ments, and medica l bills . J amie testi fied that no money rema ined from se lling the house
. J oe wa s permitted t o testify at l eng th, even rea ding a prepa red state ment to the court. He stated that J amie incurre d debts by spending money that she did not have, and there fore he should be e ntitled to his half of the proc eeds f rom the sale of

the house. At the c onclusion of the trial, the trial court state d th a t th e re wa s n ot m uc h p ro pe rt

y to d ivi de up , a

nd “ Ic an’ t divi de so me thi ngthat do e sn ’t e xist any more.” They wer e eac h awa rded a vehic le and other

persona l property , and Jamie was orde red to tur n over all items be longing to Joe to Joe’s mother. Fur ther, J amie was order ed to pay the debt owed on the ve hicle aw arde d to her, a nd also any

cre dit card de bt in her name and any debts incurr ed solely by her a fter F ebrua

ry 17, 2004. J oe was order ed to pay any cre dit card de bt in his name and any debts incurr ed solely

by him after F ebrua

ry 17, 2004.04
- 08
- 00 92 5- CV

- 4- B a se d o n th is r e c or d, it a pp e ars the tr ia l c ourt

c on sid e re d th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y bo th pa rt ie s and de te rm ine d that any a sse ts on c e he ld by the pa rt ie s we re us e d to pay

com munity liabiliti es. Ac cording ly , we c annot conc lude the tri al court a bused its discretion in dividing the
c omm un ity e state . Joe ’s iss ue s o n a pp e a l are ov e rr

ule d, and the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is aff irmed.
Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice