Donna Kahla Clark v. Curtis Clark

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 25, 2015
Docket13-15-00222-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Donna Kahla Clark v. Curtis Clark (Donna Kahla Clark v. Curtis Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donna Kahla Clark v. Curtis Clark, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 13-15-00222-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 9/25/2015 11:40:08 AM Dorian E. Ramirez CLERK

No. 13-15-00222-CV Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS Donna Kahla Clark, Appellant CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS v. 9/25/2015 11:40:08 AM Curtis Clark, Appellee DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk

APPELLANT’S FIRST AMENDED BRIEF

David M. Ward SBN: 20839850 7017 Ridge Hollow Austin, Tx. 78750 davidward@swbell.net 512.338.4800 512.338.4801 (Fax) Attorney for Appellant

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant: Donna Kahla Clark Counsel: David M. Ward SBN: 20839850 7017 Ridge Hollow Austin, Tx. 78750 davidward@swbell.net 512.338.4800 512.338.4801 (Fax) Appellee: Curtis Clark Counsel: Larry Adams SBN: 00869500 Tower II 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 870 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 361.887.7014 361.887.7017 (Fax)

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of the Parties and Counsel………………………………….1

Table of Contents…………………………………………………….2

Index of Authorities………………………………………………….2

Statement of the Case………………………………………………...3

Statement on Oral Argument…………………………………………3

Issues Presented………………………………………………………3

Statement of Facts…………………………………………………….3

Summary of the Argument……………………………………………3

Argument……………………………………………………………..4

Prayer…………………………………………………………………7

Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………….

Certificate of Service………………………………………………….

Appendix……………………………………………………………...8

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W. 2d 137,140 (Tex. 1977)………….3 Roberts v. Roberts, 999 S.W. 2d 424, 432 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1999)…6 Story v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 306 (1859)………………………………….6 Vallone v. Vallone, 644 S.W. 2d 455 (Tex., 1983)……………………..7 Sec. 3.001, 3.002, 3.003 Texas Family Code…………………………..4

2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the case: Dissolution of the marital relationship, involving only property issues, as the children had reached their majority.

Trial Court: The Honorable Bobby Galvan, 94th Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court’s Disposition: Decree of divorce granted and property divided.

STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant makes no request for oral argument.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Did the trial court err in awarding the Cullen Frost stock to Curtis as his separate property?

Did the trial court err in awarding the Gardendale stock Curtis received from his brother’s estate to him as his separate property?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This appeal involves two mischaracterizations of marital property by the trial court in a divorce case. The first is Donna’s Cullen Frost stock which had been in her name for 15 years. The trial judge divested her of this separate property and ruled it was Curtis’s separate property. (CR 98, H-2) The second is the Gardendale stock which Curtis received after suing the Red Cross and his brother’s estate. Despite Curtis having received this stock during marriage by his toil and efforts, the trial court characterized it as Curtis’s separate property. (CR 98, H-1) Donna’s appeal is that the Cullen Frost stock is her separate property, and the Gardendale stock Curtis got through his lawsuit is community property.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The nature of property is fixed by the Texas Constitution, and not by what is “just and right.”… Section 15, article XVI of the Texas Constitution declares that a wife’s property, owned or claimed by her before marriage, and afterward

3 by gift, devise, or descent shall be the separate property of the wife. By reason of legislation, the husband’s property is classified the same way. If one spouse’s separate property may by reason of a divorce decree be changed from the separate property of the one spouse into the separate property of the other, there is a type of separate property not embraced within the constitutional definition of the term. Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W. 2d 137,140 (Tex. 1977)

ARGUMENT

Sec. 3.001, Family Code: A spouse’s separate property consists of:

1) The property owned or claimed by the spouse before marriage; 2) The property acquired by the spouse during the marriage by gift, devise or descent; and 3) The recovery for personal injuries….

Sec. 3.002:

Community property consists of property, other than separate property, acquired by either spouse during marriage.

Sec. 3.003:

a) Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property. b) The degree of proof necessary to establish that property is separate is clear and convincing evidence.

CULLEN FROST STOCK

Donna’s testimony:

Q: Explain to the court the circumstances of how you acquired the Cullen stock? A: Back when I filed for divorce the first time…the attorneys decided we should go ahead and try to get the property settlement out of the way, so we could focus on the custody part. So we agreed to do that… I was taking the condo, and it had a balance, I mean it had a loan on it… Curtis owed $70,000 in child support. He had quit paying a long, long time ago when the divorce had been going on for three and a half years and he owed some money. He transferred $70,000 worth of stock to me for the child

4 support. (RR 120)

Curtis’s testimony:

Q: All right. Now, at the – during the first divorce, you were ordered to pay child support, correct? A: I - - that’s a long time ago. I - - I’m sure—I don’t remember. (RR 21)

Q: Well, how did the Cullen/Frost share stock get into Donna’s name? A: That was a settlement prior that we- - we had intended as a settlement. … Q: Did you tell the Frost people to transfer those shares from your name into Donna’s. A: I’m sure at that time in part of the agreement to do that, and I fulfilled that part of the bargain. (RR 22)

Q: Now, on August 27th of 1996, according to the Frost Bank records, you transferred the stock that is under consideration here, correct? A: Correct. … Q: Have you made any attempt to get the stock back from Frost? A: No. (RR 109-110)

Q: And whatever it was that you received in that –in that divorce settlement continued on and likewise for the shares of stock? A: Absolutely. (RR 91)

Curtis never once, from 1996 to 2011, contested, or even mentioned, Donna’s ownership of the stock, because he gave her the stock to settle the back support he owed. When Donna refiled for divorce, the stock had risen significantly in value, and suddenly Curtis claimed it was his separate property. Did he meet the standard of “clear and convincing” evidence to establish the stock was his separate property? No, his testimony established that he voluntarily transferred the stock to Donna in “a settlement.” He owed her $70,000 for court ordered child support. He never denied that the transfer of the stock was compensation for back support. At trial, Curtis denied that the Lincoln Navigator he gave Donna on her birthday was a gift. (RR 19) He denied the car he gave his son was a gift. (RR 21). He said the only thing he’d ever given Donna was a watch , when she was claiming that he had stolen jewelry he had given her over the years worth scores of thousands of dollars. (RR 124-125, Ex. P-5)

5 Where the conveyance is from one spouse to another, there is a presumption of gift. Story v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 306 (1859). In this case, it was in payment of a court ordered debt. It doesn’t matter why Curtis transferred the stock, as he didn’t claim fraud, accident, or mistake. (“While generally speaking, presumptions of separate property are rebuttable, in the absence of allegations such as fraud, accident or mistake, parole evidence is inadmissible…” Roberts v. Roberts, 999 S.W. 2d 424, 432 (Tex.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer
554 S.W.2d 137 (Texas Supreme Court, 1977)
Roberts v. Roberts
999 S.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Vallone v. Vallone
644 S.W.2d 455 (Texas Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Donna Kahla Clark v. Curtis Clark, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donna-kahla-clark-v-curtis-clark-texapp-2015.