Court Opinion

ID: 9715639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:10:35.239817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:21.666996
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed August 24, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                                No. 11-22-00085-CV
                                    __________

             GEORGE FRANCIS SHEEHAN, JR., Appellant

                                         V.
                       PAMELA SHEEHAN, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 318th District Court
                            Midland County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. FM67035

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. In two issues, Appellant,
George Francis Sheehan, Jr., contends that the trial court erred by characterizing the
proceeds from an underinsured-motorist-claim settlement as community property.
We affirm.
                                 Background Facts
      George and Appellee, Pamela Sheehan, married in 1994. The testimony at
trial revealed that they had an acrimonious marriage that included separations at
various times. On December 15, 2014, George was involved in a motor vehicle
accident while in the scope of his employment with West Texas Gas. George and
Pamela were separated at the time of the accident, but they reconciled afterwards.
They remained together until 2019.
      George suffered injuries as a result of the accident that required him to have
multiple surgeries. George settled with the driver of the other motor vehicle for her
policy limits of $30,000. George’s employer provided insurance coverage to him
through two policies issued by The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania.
One policy provided worker’s compensation coverage. The other policy provided
underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
      George settled his UIM claim with The Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania after a mediation that occurred in August 2019. The gross amount of
the settlement was $1,250,000. After the deduction of attorney’s fees and expenses,
the net amount payable to George from the settlement was $710,724.25. His
attorneys wire-transferred that amount into his and Pamela’s joint checking account
on October 8, 2019. George and Pamela separated for the final time later that month,
and Pamela filed for divorce on November 1, 2019.
      George’s issues on appeal concern the characterization of the $710,724.25 in
net proceeds from the settlement of the UIM claim. In his first issue, George
contends that the trial court erred by characterizing the $710,724.25 payment to be
community property. George’s second issue is related to his first issue—he asserts
that the trial court erred by determining that a house that he purchased in Tyler was
community property because he purchased it with proceeds from the settlement.

                                          2
                                        Analysis
      We review the trial court’s characterization of marital property for an abuse
of discretion. See In re Marriage of Skarda, 345 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2011, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is
arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles. In re A.L.M.-
F., 593 S.W.3d 271, 282 (Tex. 2019). In family law cases, the abuse of discretion
standard of review overlaps with the traditional sufficiency standards of review; as
a result, legal and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds of reversible error,
but instead constitute factors relevant to our assessment of whether the trial court
abused its discretion. Moore v. Moore, 568 S.W.3d 725, 729 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2019, no pet.).
      In his first issue, George asserts that the trial court erred by concluding that
the UIM settlement proceeds constituted community property. He does not specify
in his brief if his challenge is based on legal sufficiency, factual sufficiency, or both.
However, in his motion for new trial, he asserted that he was challenging the legal
and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s characterization
of the net settlement proceeds.
      In conducting a legal sufficiency review under the clear and convincing
evidence standard, an appellate court reviews all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the trial court’s finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact
could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its finding was true. In re J.F.C.,
96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable
to the judgment means that a reviewing court must assume that the factfinder
resolved disputed facts in favor of the finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so.
See id. When considering the factual sufficiency of the evidence under the clear and
convincing evidence standard, we give due consideration to evidence the factfinder
reasonably could have found to be clear and convincing. See Magness v. Magness,
                                            3
241 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied). We then consider
whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have
resolved that disputed evidence in favor of its finding. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at
266.
        In its final decree of divorce, the trial court made the following findings:
               The Court finds the proponent of separate property Respondent
        George Sheehan, has failed to meet the required burden of proof and
        accordingly the $710,724 25 net settlement proceeds deposited in to the
        parties’ joint checking account on October 8 2019 is community
        property[.] Given such finding Respondents claim of separate property
        for the property he purchased with his portion of the net settlement
        proceeds fails as well[.]
              The Court finds that the residence purchased in Tyler, Texas,
        together with all improvements to same is community and a part of this
        community estate[.]1
Ostensibly, George contends that he conclusively established that the settlement
proceeds were his separate property.
        Community property is property, other than separate property, acquired by
either spouse during the marriage. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 3.002 (West 2006); see
also TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 15. In general, all property possessed by either spouse
during or on dissolution of the marriage is presumed to be community property. See
FAM. § 3.003(a). A spouse claiming separate property must prove the separate
character of the property by clear and convincing evidence. See id. § 3.003(b).
Thus, George was required to present evidence that would “produce in the mind of
the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to

        1
          Rule 299a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]indings of fact shall not be
recited in a judgment.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 299a. “[A]lthough a trial court errs in including findings of fact in
its judgment, findings of fact in a judgment are accorded probative value ‘so long as they are not in conflict
with findings recited in a separate document.’” Wood v. Wiggins, 650 S.W.3d 533, 545 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied) (quoting Gonzalez v. Razi, 338 S.W.3d 167, 175 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied)). Here, the parties did not request, and the trial court did not enter,
separate findings of fact.
                                                      4
be established.” See Nelson v. Nelson, 193 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2006, no pet.) (quoting FAM. § 101.007 (West 2019)).
      As recently noted by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals:
            Recovery for personal injuries to the body, including mental pain
      and anguish and physical disfigurement, sustained by a spouse during
      marriage is considered that spouse’s separate property, but recovery for
      loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, and other expenses
      associated with injury to the community estate are community property.

Thornhill v. Thornhill, 666 S.W.3d 823, 827 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023,
no pet.) (citing FAM. § 3.001). “Given the community presumption, if a spouse who
received a personal injury settlement asserts that some or all of it is that spouse’s
separate property, it is that spouse’s burden to prove by clear and convincing
evidence which portion of the settlement is his separate property.” Id. (citing
Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Okelberry, 525 S.W.3d 786, 793–94 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied); Licata v. Licata, 11 S.W.3d 269, 273
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)).
      Here, the evidence concerning the characterization of the settlement proceeds
is in two forms: 1) documents concerning the settlement, including two settlement
agreements, and 2) oral testimony about the settlement. We initially direct our
attention to the oral testimony. George testified that the money from the settlement
of the UIM claim was “my money.” He further testified that it was deposited into
the parties’ joint checking account and that he did not instruct Pamela, who paid all
of the parties’ bills, to not spend the settlement proceeds. When asked, “[t]he money
was just put in a big pile to pay bills and do whatever you wanted to do, right?”
George replied in the affirmative. George was also asked, “[a]nd isn’t it true that
talking about that money and when it was deposited, didn’t you tell me in here that
it was your intent to use that money for retirement as well as -- retirement and taking
care of Pam?” to which George also replied in the affirmative.
                                          5
      With respect to the settlement agreements, the construction of a settlement
agreement has often been determinative of the characterization of settlement
proceeds. See Thornhill, 666 S.W.3d at 828–30. “Courts considering whether
settlement proceeds are separate or community property typically look first to
whether the terms of the settlement allocated the proceeds to specific elements of
damages that may constitute either separate or community property.” Id. at 828.
      George executed the first settlement agreement on August 15, 2019,
contemporaneous with the mediation of the UIM claim.           The first settlement
agreement does not allocate the settlement to any specific damage elements. Instead,
it generally provided that The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania
would pay George the sum of $1,250,000 “in exchange for a complete release of all
claims.” The first settlement agreement further noted that “[t]he above terms and
conditions will be reduced to a formal settlement agreement and either an agreed
judgment or a Motion and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.”
      The second settlement agreement was not executed until February 1, 2021.
Thus, it was executed several months after the execution of the first settlement
agreement. It was also executed several months after George received the net
settlement proceeds (October 8, 2019) and the date that Pamela filed for divorce
(November 1, 2019).       Additionally, George executed the second settlement
agreement after the parties had withdrawn the settlement proceeds from their joint
checking account. In that regard, Pamela withdrew $330,000 from the joint account
on October 24, 2019, on the day that the parties separated for the final time. Also,
George withdrew a similar amount on that date from the joint account. George later
used the money he withdrew to purchase the home in Tyler in February 2020.
      The second settlement agreement provides that the consideration in the UIM
case is “for personal injury damages consisting of mental anguish.” Another
provision of the second settlement agreement provided that the $1,250,000 payment
                                         6
was “for personal injury damages and only personal injury damages,” and that “all
proceeds constitute compensatory damages on account of personal injuries as
contemplated by the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.”
      George relies on the second settlement agreement and its provisions that the
$1,250,000 settlement was limited to non-economic claims belonging to George.
However, the second settlement agreement was executed several months after the
net settlement proceeds were paid into the parties’ joint account, and after the net
settlement proceeds had been withdrawn by the parties. Because George did not
execute the second settlement agreement contemporaneous with the receipt of the
net settlement proceeds, we conclude that the terms of the second settlement
agreement did not affect the characterization of the net settlement proceeds. See
Harrell v. Hochderffer, 345 S.W.3d 652, 658 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.)
(noting that documents affecting the characterization of settlement proceeds are
executed “sufficiently proximate in time” to the settlement).
      The fact that the first settlement agreement contemplated the execution of a
later settlement agreement does not change our conclusion with respect to the
characterization of the net settlement proceeds as far as George and Pamela are
concerned.    That provision in the first settlement agreement dealt with the
obligations between George and The Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania.     Because the insurance company also provided worker’s
compensation coverage to George, the formal (second) settlement agreement
understandably took an extended period of time to resolve. But given the fact that
several months had passed after the receipt and dissipation of the net settlement
proceeds, we are hard-pressed to conclude that an after-the-fact agreement between
George and the insurance company altered the characterization of the settlement
proceeds as far as his and Pamela’s marital property rights were concerned.

                                         7
Accordingly, we direct our attention to the first settlement agreement because
George executed it contemporaneously with the receipt of the settlement proceeds.
      As we previously noted, the first settlement agreement did not allocate the
settlement to any specific damage elements. Instead, it provided that George would
receive $1,250,000 “in exchange for a complete release of all claims.” At the time
that George executed the first settlement agreement, his live pleading in the UIM
case was his third amended petition wherein he asserted claims for “under-insured
motorist damages” consisting of “reasonable and necessary medical expenses,
physical pain and mental anguish, disfigurement, impairment, loss of earnings, loss
of earning capacity” both in the past and in the future. George also asserted a claim
for enforcement of an agreement reached in the worker’s compensation claim,
claims for bad faith and unfair settlement practices, claims for insurance code
violations, and claims for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
      Under the terms of the first settlement agreement, George released all claims
in exchange for the settlement proceeds. By doing so, he released a broad range of
claims, including community claims for lost earnings and medical expenses. See
Henslee v. Henslee, No. 12-09-00274-CV, 2010 WL 2982928, at *4 (Tex. App.—
Tyler July 30, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.).        Because the settlement included
compensation for both community property claims and separate property claims, it
was George’s burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence which portion
of the settlement proceeds was his separate property. See Cottone v. Cottone, 122
S.W.3d 211, 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
      Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that George
did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence which portions of the
settlement proceeds for his UIM claim were his separate property. A proper
construction of the settlement agreement does not establish that the settlement
proceeds were George’s separate property because the first settlement agreement,
                                         8
which is the operative agreement, is broad in the claims that George released, and it
does not allocate the settlement amount to any specific damage elements.
Additionally, the oral testimony did not overcome the community property
presumption applicable to the settlement proceeds.       Accordingly, we overrule
George’s first issue.
      George’s second issue, which challenges the characterization of the house he
purchased in Tyler with settlement funds, is contingent upon his first issue. Because
we have determined that the trial court did not err by concluding that the UIM
settlement proceeds were the parties’ community property, we overrule George’s
second issue.

                                   This Court’s Ruling
      We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                CHIEF JUSTICE

August 24, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                            9