Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Tammy L. Morris appeals from a divorce decree dated Sept. 16, 2002, dissolving her marriage with Christopher E. Morris and dividing the property of the parties. She contends the trial court’s mischaracterization of certain real property resulted in a disproportionate property division favoring Christopher. At issue on appeal are four separate items: 1. the timber on a 63.20-acre tract; 2. an unimproved 2.80-acre tract; 3. the one-acre marital residence; and 4. rights in a shop located near the residence. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part. Tammy concedes that a 63.2-acre tract was Christopher’s separate property, but she claims community ownership, or special separate ownership, of the timber located on the property. It is a fundamental principle that “any property or rights acquired by one of the spouses after marriage by toil, talent, industry or other productive faculty belongs to the community estate.” Vallone v. Vallone, 644 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1982). This principle, however, does not apply to the situation presented in this case because the record is clear the tract was a gift to Christopher and was never impressed with a community character. At trial, Tammy, Christopher, and his father, Kenneth, all agreed that Christopher’s parents had contracted and paid for the timber to be planted years in advance of the 1993 and 1994 conveyances and that Christopher did not expend any time, talent, or labor with respect to the trees. Even if Christopher had made some effort in working to maintain or increase the value of this property, the law nevertheless contemplates that a spouse may expend a reasonable amount of talent or labor in the management and preservation of his or her separate estate without impressing a community character upon that estate. The fact that the timber crop increased in value during the marriage, without any effort by the parties, is simply not enough to justify characterizing the property as part of the community estate. Before Christopher deeded the 63.2 acres to his father, all of it � acreage and unharvested timber � was Christopher’s separate property. On cross-examination, both Christopher and Kenneth admitted they had no documentation to support their claims that a 2.8 acre property was a gift from father to son. Additionally, the deed language itself makes plain that the property was conveyed to Christopher for good, valuable and sufficient consideration paid by him to the San Jacinto Sand Co. The 2.8 acres was community property. Particularly significant in addressing Tammy’s claim that the one-acre marital residence was community property is the contract of sale entered into on Dec. 7, 1990. This contract, signed by Tammy, Christopher, and Christopher’s parents, provided that the parents would convey to Tammy and Christopher the one-acre tract � along with the residence then being built � in exchange for $80,000 to be paid in monthly installments. The subsequent conveyance of the entire 19.68 acres as Christopher’s separate property could not have operated to alter those rights of the community. Regardless of the language of the March 3, 1992, deed, therefore, Christopher’s parents conveyed 19.68 acres, one acre of which was community property subject to Tammy’s earlier established interest. Christopher’s subsequent deed of the 19.68 acres to his father could not act to divest the community of its interest in the one acre and the residence thereon. It was and remains community property. Because Tammy provided no evidence of the amount of community funds, if any, used in building a shop, and recognizing that a trial court’s discretion in evaluating a claim for reimbursement is as broad as the discretion exercised by the trial court in making a just and right division of the marital estate, the court concludes the court did not abuse its discretion in denying reimbursement to the community estate for the shop building. OPINION:Morriss III, C.J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.