Harrell v. Harrell

692 S.W.2d 876, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 552, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 874
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 10, 1985
DocketC-3884
StatusPublished
Cited by55 cases

This text of 692 S.W.2d 876 (Harrell v. Harrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harrell v. Harrell, 692 S.W.2d 876, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 552, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 874 (Tex. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This' is a partition suit brought by a former spouse seeking division of military nondisability retirement benefits. The trial court held that the suit was foreclosed by this court’s opinion in Trahan v. Trahan (Trahan I), 626 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.1981). The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial. 684 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984). On rehearing, 684 S.W.2d at 123, the court of appeals reversed itself and rendered judgment that Opal take nothing in her partition action. Because the court of appeals opinion on motion for rehearing conflicts with prior decisions of this court, we grant writ of error and, pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483, without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

It has long been the rule in Texas that community property not partitioned or divided upon divorce is held by the former spouses as tenants in common or joint owners. Busby v. Busby, 457 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.1970); and Taylor v. Catalon, 140 Tex. 38, 166 S.W.2d 102, 104 (1942). It has likewise been the rule in Texas that a suit for partition of such former community property is a proper means of dividing said property between the tenants in common. See Taggart v. Taggart, 552 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.1977); Busby v. Busby, supra; and Keller v. Keller, 135 Tex. 260, 141 S.W.2d 308 (1940). The court of appeals held that Opal’s sole means of obtaining a division of Herbert’s military nondisability retirement benefits was by way of bill of review. Because this decision conflicts with this court’s opinions in Taggart, Busby, Keller, and Taylor, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the court of appeals for consideration of Opal’s remaining points of error.

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

Related

Leticia Loya v. Miguel Angel Loya
473 S.W.3d 362 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Chiarini v. State
442 S.W.3d 318 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Chiarini, Edward v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Diane Maddox v. Winda Lou Cindy Maddox
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011
Rosita De La Paz v. Adan De La Paz
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Parrish v. Parrish
254 S.W.3d 572 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
James Michael Parrish v. Billy Rose Parrish
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Kadlecek v. Kadlecek
93 S.W.3d 903 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Appleton v. Appleton
76 S.W.3d 78 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Stephens v. Marlowe
20 S.W.3d 250 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Mayes v. Stewart
11 S.W.3d 440 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
In Re Marriage of Taylor
992 S.W.2d 616 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
McDougall v. Havlen
980 S.W.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
692 S.W.2d 876, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 552, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-harrell-tex-1985.