Court Opinion

ID: 9773649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:52:45.32627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.835512
License: Public Domain

McGEE, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the judgment of the Court. I also concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds that marital property acquired in a common law state is subject to division by a Texas court upon the parties’ divorce. I cannot, however, accept the majority’s unnecessary discussion of Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.1977). Since the’entire Court agrees that the savings bonds at issue in this case are not separate property, the majority’s discussion of separate personalty is obitur dictum. As in Eggemeyer, a majority of this Court has reached conclusions grounded on statutory and constitutional considerations not essential to the disposition of the case. Because I do not believe Eggemeyer correctly states the law in all respects, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s statement to the contrary.
In Eggemeyer, the issue before the Court was whether the trial court, in its divorce decree, could “divest one spouse of his separate realty and transfer title to the other spouse.” 554 S.W.2d at 138 (emphasis added). Virginia Eggemeyer’s principal contention was that section 3.63, unlike former article 4638, did not restrict the power of the trial court to divide the separate realty of one spouse and award the other spouse a fee interest therein. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the legislature had intended to recodify the law as it existed before the enactment of the Family Code.
*224The majority opinion in Eggemeyer; however, transcended the precise issue before the Court and advanced three additional grounds for its decision:
(1) the phrase “estate of the parties,” as employed in section 3.63 of the Family Code refers only to the community property of the parties and prohibits the division of separate property;
(2) a division of the separate property of one spouse would create a form of separate property not provided for in article XVI, section 15 of the Texas Constitution;
(3) a division of the separate property of one spouse is a taking of property not justified by any public benefit, and deprives that spouse of his property without due process in violation of article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution.
In this case, the majority states that these supposed limitations on the power of the trial court are equally applicable to an attempted division of separate personalty. For the following reasons, I disagree.
A. Eggemeyer Is Not Stare Decisis on the Divisibility of Separate Personalty under the Family Code.
The first statutory ground advanced in Eggemeyer was that the legislature intended to enact the Family Code as a codification of existing law. 554 S.W.2d at 139. Article 4638, the forerunner of section 3.63, expressly prohibited divestiture of realty by a trial court when making a fair and just division of property in divorce proceedings. For over a hundred years, however, Texas courts divided separate personalty when equity demanded such a division. Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 409, 248 S.W. 21, 22-23 (1923); Fitts v. Fitts, 14 Tex. 443, 450, 453 (1855); Trader v. Trader, 531 S.W.2d 189, 190 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, writ dism’d); Tullis v. Tullis, 456 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1970, writ dism’d); Dillingham v. Dillingham, 434 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1968, writ dism’d); Grant v. Grant, 351 S.W.2d 897, 898 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1961, writ dism’d); McCart v. McCart, 275 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1955, no writ); Grisham v. Grisham, 255 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1953, no writ); Hamm v. Hamm, 159 S.W .2d 183, 185-86 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1942, no writ); Dale v. Dale, 141 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1940, no writ).
The statutory prohibition of divestiture of realty was not carried forward in section 3.63 of the Family Code. Despite the obvious omission of that prohibition, the Court determined the legislative intent behind section 3.63 was to codify the law as it existed at that time. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d at 139. Thus, section 3.63 did not authorize divestiture of separate realty upon divorce. Id.
This holding alone would have been sufficient to sustain the Court’s judgment in Eggemeyer. Nevertheless, the Court advanced a second statutory ground as a básis for its decision. Upon exmaining section 3.63, the Court held that the “estate of the parties” was limited to community property. In so doing, the Court redefined the statutory language in a manner wholly different from that which existed previously. Consequently, the Court’s construction of section 3.63 was inconsistent with its simultaneous determination that the Family Code codified the existing law.
In Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21 (1923), this Court construed the phrase “estate of the parties” as follows:
The estate subject to division, under the statute, includes all property of the parties whether community property or separate property. The meaning of the statute is not different from what it would have been had the word ‘property’ been substituted in its phraseology for the word ‘estate.’
Id. at 408, 248 S.W. at 22 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding continued judicial and legislative acceptance of this construction, the majority in Eggemeyer examined several relatively recent cases and determined “estate of the parties” referred only to community property. See Reardon v. Reardon, 163 *225Tex. 605, 359 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.1962); Hailey v. Hailey, 160 Tex. 372, 331 S.W.2d 299 (1960); Mansfield v. Mansfield, 308 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1957, writ dism’d). Upon closer examination, it is clear those cases dealt solely with the question of whether title to community real estate could be divested. None of these cases purported to construe “estate of the parties.”1
The courts of this State historically have interpreted “estate of the parties” to mean all property of the parties, whether community or separate. E.g., Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. at 408, 248 S.W. at 22; Fitts v. Fitts, 14 Tex. at 450; Trader v. Trader, 531 S.W.2d 189, 190 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, writ dism’d). Any doubt as to the correct construction of a statute must be considered removed by consistent interpretation by the appellate courts. Marmon v. Mustang Aviation, Inc., 430 S.W.2d 182, 193 (Tex.1968); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 120 Tex. 491, 40 S.W.2d 46 (1931). As Justice Norvell cautioned in Marmon, the doctrine of stare decisis is especially weighty in statutory construction:
“It is one thing for the judicial branch to amend a statute and quite another thing to modify a rule of common law. And, to overrule a court’s uniform interpretation of a statute which has persisted over a long period of years as evidenced by numerous decisions, is very like amending a statute. That is why the rule of stare decisis is highly binding in this field.”
430 S.W.2d at 193. Because the definition of “estate of the parties” was not essential to the holding in Eggemeyer, and because it represented a departure from established construction, I do not regard the Eggemeyer definition as a correct statement of the law.2
B. Eggemeyer Is An Incorrect Construction of the Texas Constitution.
The Court’s judgment in Eggemeyer, as noted above, was fully supported by the holding that section 3.63 was merely a reco-dification of existing law. Thus, it is not surprising that the subsequent discussion of the constitutional limitations on the division of separate property in general has been treated as dicta, Muns v. Muns, 567 S.W.2d 563, 565 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1978, no writ), and has not been viewed as prohibiting an award of one spouse’s separate personalty to the other. York v. York, 579 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Tex.Civ.App. —Beaumont 1979, no writ); Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 557 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1977), rev’d on other grounds, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.1979). The constitutional bases of Eggemeyer should not be regarded as authoritative since this Court will not decide a case on constitutional grounds if the case can otherwise be disposed of. See, e.g., Wood v. Wood, 159 Tex. 350, 359, 320 S.W.2d 807, 813 (1959); San Antonio General Drivers, Helpers Local No. 657 v. Thornton, 156 Tex. 641, 647, 299 S.W.2d 911, 915 (1957); Waller v. State, 68 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1934, writ ref’d). *226In my opinion, there are no constitutional limitations on the power of the trial court to divest a spouse of his or her separate property.
Prior to its amendment in 1980, article XVI, section 15 of the constitution provided as follows:
All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned prior to marriage or claimed by her before marriage by gift, devise or descent, shall be the separate property of the wife; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as that held in common with her husband ....
Citing Arnold v. Leonard, 114 Tex. 535, 273 S.W. 799 (1925), the majority in Eggemeyer stated that the constitutional definition of separate property was exclusive and could not be altered or enlarged by the legislature. Thus, even if section 3.63 could be construed as permitting a divestiture of one spouse’s separate realty, the trial court was still powerless to make an award of one spouse’s separate property to the other in its divorce decree.
What the Court overlooked in Eggemeyer is that the division of property upon divorce does not occur during the marriage, but at the moment of divorce; the division of property and the divorce decree are a single, integrated action. Application of those rules which characterize property before and during marriage is inappropriate. An analogous situation involves community property that is not divided upon divorce. We have consistently held such property is owned by the ex-spouses separately as tenants in common. Busby v. Busby, 457 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.1970); Taylor v. Catalon, 140 Tex. 38, 41-42, 166 S.W.2d 102, 104, (1942); Kirkwood v. Domnan, 80 Tex. 645, 647-48, 16 S.W. 428, 429 (1891). In both instances, this “separate property” is not within the constitutional definition, but is created by the fact of divorce.
There are, moreover, at least two additional situations in which property that is neither “owned prior to marriage” nor acquired thereafter by “gift, devise or descent” is treated as separate property. The first is a mutation of separate property. The second, personal injury awards, is particularly instructive for the purposes of this case. In Graham v. Franco, 488 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.1972), we unanimously held that such awards were the separate property of the injured spouse despite their exclusion from the constitutional definition. More importantly, we limited Arnold v. Leonard to its facts. Thus, the most that can be gleaned from Arnold v. Leonard is that the legislature is powerless to enact a law classifying the rents and revenues of the wife’s separate realty as her separate property.
There is, however, a more basic flaw in the “implied exclusion” reasoning of Arnold v. Leonard. Logically extended, it denies the existence of the husband’s separate property since the constitution, until the 1980 amendment of article XVI, section 15, provided only for the separate property of the wife. Under a strict reading of Arnold v. Leonard, all property owned by the husband before marriage and acquired thereafter during marriage is necessarily community.
The fact that property is community or separate is pertinent to its division upon divorce. The courts of appeals have evolved several equitable rules which, quite properly, limit the trial court’s discretion to award the separate property of one spouse to the other spouse to extraordinary circumstances. Muns v. Muns, 567 S.W.2d 563, 567 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1978, no writ); Cooper v. Cooper, 513 S.W.2d 229, 233 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no writ); Bryant v. Bryant, 478 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.Civ.App.— Waco 1972, no writ); Dorfman v. Dorfman, 457 S.W.2d 91, 95 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1970, no writ); Keene v. Keene, 445 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, writ dism’d). Equity and the theory of community property argue for such rules. For over a century, Texas courts awarded separate personalty upon divorce. Prior to Eggemeyer, this was not considered a constitutional problem. It was the statutory provision, not the constitution which prohibited the award of separate realty upon di*227vorce. Therefore, I would hold that article XVI, section 15 of the constitution does not prohibit a trial court from dividing the separate property of one spouse upon divorce.
The second constitutional basis for the Court’s decision in Eggemeyer was the due process clause of the Texas Constitution. Tex.Const. art. I, § 19. In Eggemeyer, the Court stated that the division of one spouse’s separate property was not justified by any benefit to the public welfare. Because this “taking” of private property was not grounded upon the police power, the legislature could not constitutionally authorize a division of one spouse’s separate property.
I disagree with this holding. As stated in the dissent in Eggemeyer, “[t]he special relationship between the State and the institution of marriage has often been recognized.” 554 S.W.2d at 147. The state’s interest in the marital relationship provides a sufficient and justifiable public purpose for divestiture of one spouse’s separate property. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 726, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1897).
By ordering periodic child support payments, Texas courts are empowered to divest a parent of his separate personalty. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 14.05. Likewise, the state imposes a duty upon the spouses to support each other during the marriage. Id. § 4.02. Although a spouse must look first to the community for support, the other spouse may be required to employ his or her separate funds if community funds are insufficient. Norris v. Vaughan, 152 Tex. 491, 502-03, 260 S.W.2d 676, 683 (1953); Callahan v. Patterson, 4 Tex. 61, 66 (1849). In neither case is there a violation of due process. The valid state interest in the marital relationship justifies the burdens imposed upon a spouse’s separate property. That same valid state interest allows the state to provide rules for the dissolution of the marriage and the division of both separate and community property upon dissolution.
Section 3.63 of the Family Code and previous Texas divorce statutes have required the division of marital property according to equitable principles. In many circumstances, equity may require an unequal division of community property. Bell v. Bell, 513 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.1974). Likewise, in extreme cases, equity may require the trial court to award a portion of one spouse’s separate personalty to the other. I would hold that article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution is no impediment to an award of one spouse’s separate property to the other.
The majority opinion suggests that allowing a divestiture of separate personalty under section 3.63, in light of the holding in Eggemeyer that separate realty cannot be divested, is a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 3- of the Texas Constitution. The argument is that a classification based on land ownership arbitrarily discriminates against those persons owning separate personalty rather than separate realty. I do not find this contention persuasive.
The equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions protect individuals against arbitrary discrimination by the state. The state, however, may classify its citizens into reasonable classes, and treat these different classes of persons in different ways. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75, 92 S.Ct. 251, 253, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971); Railroad Commission v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d 670, 673 (Tex.1968); Bjorgo v. Bjorgo, 402 S.W.2d 143, 148 (Tex.1966).
The test under both the state and federal constitutions is whether the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. at 76, 92 S.Ct. at 254 (1971); Railroad Commission v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d at 673; San Antonio Retail Grocers v. Lafferty, 156 Tex. 574, 577, 297 S.W.2d 813, 815 (1957). There must be some ground of difference which has a fair and substantial relationship to the purpose of the legislation, so that all persons similarly situated are similarly treated. New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303-04, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516-17, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976); Railroad Commission v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d at 673.
*228There is a rational purpose for the different treatment accorded owners of real and personal property by the trial courts upon divorce. Realty, by definition, is unique. By contrast, personalty is often fungible and more easily replaced than realty. If a spouse’s personalty is genuinely unique and irreplaceable, the trial court can consider this fact under section 3.63.
C. A Divestiture of Separate Property Is Not an Award of Alimony.
The majority opinion asserts that a divestiture of separate property “is nothing less than alimony.” Thus, the majority concludes that a division of one spouse’s separate property is not only prohibited by section 3.63 and the Texas Constitution, but is also contrary to public policy. I disagree.
A divestiture of separate property and an award of alimony are totally different. Unlike a divestiture of separate property, alimony is a personal obligation of one spouse to support the other which continues after a final decree of divorce. Francis v. Francis, 412 S.W.2d 29, 32-33 (Tex.1967). By contrast, a divestiture of separate property, like a division of community property, is an isolated event which occurs at the moment of divorce. Alimony and an award of separate property are two distinct means of achieving a single end: the financial support of the ex-spouse. Because Texas does not permit alimony, our courts, with the implicit approval of the legislature, have permitted divestiture of one spouse’s separate personalty to ensure that the other spouse does not become a destitute ward of the state.
The majority also stresses that its opinion conforms with the law of other community property jurisdictions. While it is true that no state other than Washington permits a divestiture of separate property, it is equally true that the courts of these states are empowered to award permanent alimony. This is a critical distinction which the majority relegates to a footnote.
D. Conclusion.
Neither Eggemeyer nor the majority opinion in this case should be viewed as anything but dicta regarding the power of the trial court to divide separate personalty upon divorce. In my opinion, section 3.63 of the Family Code allows the trial court to divest a spouse of his or her separate personalty. Furthermore, I do not believe the Texas Constitution prohibits such a division.
BARROW and SONDOCK, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.

. In Reardon v. Reardon, the Court held that the prohibition against divestiture of title to real estate in article 4638 did not include community real estate. 163 Tex. at 607, 359 S.W.2d at 330. The most that should be taken from this holding is that the “estate of the parties” does include community realty. I do not believe the holding excludes from the definition the separate property of the spouses. If “estate of the parties” was intended to apply only to community property, that portion of article 4638 prohibiting divestiture of title to realty would have been mere surplusage.
In Hailey v. Hailey, the Court noted with approval the language in Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306 (1939), that title to realty could not be divested. The Court held that the division of community real property is proper and does not violate article 4638 because a partition deed merely dissolves a tenancy in common and does not convey title. 160 Tex. at 375-76, 331 S.W.2d at 302-03. Accordingly, when a trial court orders a partition of community property, title to that property is not divested. In Mansfield v. Mansfield the holding was the same. 308 S.W.2d at 83.

. The fact that the legislature has not amended section 3.63 since the Court’s decision in Eg-gemeyer is not evidence of the legislature’s intent to limit the “estate of the parties” to community property. In light of the constitutional dicta in Eggemeyer, the legislature reasonably could have believed that any attempt to include separate property in the estate of the parties would have been unconstitutional.