Frederick Dawson Graham v. Dena Marie Turner

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 23, 2015·No. 12-14-00336-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

12-14-00336-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

4/23/2015 3:09:33 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

NO. 12-14-00336-CV

FILED IN

12th COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE TYLER, TEXAS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 4/23/2015 3:09:33 PM AT TYLER, TEXAS CATHY S. LUSK Clerk

FREDERICK DAWSON GRAHAM VS.

DENA MARIE TURNER

FREDERICK DAWSON GRAHAM, RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

DENA MARIE TURNER, PETITIONER/APPELLEE

Appealed from the County Court at Law of Nacogdoches County, Texas

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TOM RORIE State Bar No. 17238000 210 North Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (936) 559-1188 FAX (936) 559-0099

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

In accordance with Rule 38.1(a) of the TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE , Appellant Frederick Dawson Graham provides the following list of all parties, and the names and addresses of all counsel:

Appellant: Frederick Dawson Graham

Counsel: Mr. Tom Rorie 210 North Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (936) 559-1188 FAX (936) 559-0099 trorie@sbcglobal.net

Appellee: Dena Marie Turner

Counsel: Mr. Jarett T. LaRochelle One Riverway, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77055 (713) 907-8668 FAX (713) 840-6351 jarettlarochelle@yahoo.com

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Identity of Parties and Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Index of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Statement of the Nature of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Points of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Argument and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Point of Error No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Awarding Appellee An Ownership Interest in Appellant’s Residence

Point of Error No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Trial Court Erred in Finding that the Parties were Tenants in Common in Appellant’s Separate Property Residence Because the Evidence is Insufficient to Support that Holding

Point of Error No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Trial Court Erred by Divesting Appellant of One-Half of His Ownership in His Separate Property Residence and Awarding that Interest to Appellee

Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Basis for the Trial Court’s Ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Court Should Decline to Follow Harrington and Aaron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Evidence is Not Sufficient to Support a Finding that the Parties were Tenants in Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

iii

Existence of Joint Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Looking for a Residence Together is Not Evidence of Ownership . . . . . . 9

Was there a Common Plan or Design in Acquiring the Residence? . . . . 10

Prior Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appellant Made a Substantial Down Payment with Separate Funds . . . . 11

Appellant Paid off the Residence Quickly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Subsequent Conduct of the Parties is Evidence of Intent . . . . . . . . . 13

The Trial Court had No Discretion to Divest Appellant of Any Interest in His Separate Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Point of Error No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Failing to Find that the Residence was Not Purchased with Appellant’s Separate Property Funds When the Evidence Conclusively Showed a Purchase with His Separate Funds

Point of Error No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The Trial Court Abused its Discretion when it Disregarded Uncontradicted Evidence that Appellee Committed Fraud on the Community Estate

Point of Error No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Disregarding Evidence of Substantial Benefits Received By Appellee During the Marriage

Point of Error No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Finding that Appellant at Fault in the Break-Up of the Marriage by Considering Evidence that was Not Relevant in Time and Not Supported by the Evidence

Appellant “Assaulted” Appellee on Eight Occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

iv

Appellant Held Appellee Captive Abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Evidence of Conduct Before or After Marriage are Not Relevant as Fault in Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Point of Error No. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The Trial Court Abused its Discretion When it Ordered Appellant to Pay Spousal Support to Appellee Although He had No Ability to Pay

Point of Error No. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Awarding a Disproportionate Part of the Tract Adjoining the Residence

Conclusion and Prayer for Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

v

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Aaron v. Aaron 2012 Tex.App. LEXIS 769 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 2012, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Anchor Casualty Co. v. Bowers 393 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. V. McShane 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex.2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Company 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cameron v. Cameron 641 S.W.2d 210 (Tex.1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 14, 15

Chavez v. Chavez 269 S.W.3d 763 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

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

Frederick Dawson Graham v. Dena Marie Turner, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Frederick Dawson Graham v. Dena Marie Turner (Frederick Dawson Graham v. Dena Marie Turner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer
554 S.W.2d 137 (Texas Supreme Court, 1977)
Jackson v. Smith
703 S.W.2d 791 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Harrington v. Harrington
742 S.W.2d 722 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.
84 S.W.3d 198 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Knight v. Knight
301 S.W.3d 723 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Griffin v. Birkman
266 S.W.3d 189 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Powell v. Powell
822 S.W.2d 181 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
In Re Allstate Insurance Co.
232 S.W.3d 340 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Chavez v. Chavez
269 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
In Re the Marriage of Case
28 S.W.3d 154 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Mangum v. Turner
255 S.W.3d 223 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Zagorski v. Zagorski
116 S.W.3d 309 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
In Re Bass
113 S.W.3d 735 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane
239 S.W.3d 231 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Anchor Casualty Company v. Bowers
393 S.W.2d 168 (Texas Supreme Court, 1965)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Schlueter v. Schlueter
975 S.W.2d 584 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc.
724 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Cameron v. Cameron
641 S.W.2d 210 (Texas Supreme Court, 1982)
Davis v. Huey
571 S.W.2d 859 (Texas Supreme Court, 1978)