Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The parties were a former husband and wife, Ronnie Stoker and Diane Fischer Stoker. Before their marriage, they had signed a written Premarital Agreement, which incorporated an exhibit that listed their separate property. Listed as Diane’s separate property were, among other things, her two retirement accounts. The trial court’s divorce decree awarded Ronnie 50 percent of the funds in Diane’s retirement account, excluding the funds that had been declared her separate property by the agreement, and “and all dividends, income, increases, and decreases on said 50 % thereafter.” Diane appealed from the judgment awarding property to Ronnie and argued that the trial court 1. failed to follow the Agreement; 2. erred in awarding Ronnie a portion of increases in retirement plans that were generated by community and separate contributions; 3. failed to make a just and right division; 4. failed to award the community property in a 50/50 division; and 5. erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Ronnie. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Diane argues that the trial court erred by divesting her of her separate property. She contends that the parties’ agreement shows that the two retirement accounts are her separate property and that any increase in those accounts during her marriage to Ronnie is an increase in her separate estate. Diane also contends that any community funds contributed to the retirement accounts during the marriage constituted non-reimbursable gifts to her separate estate and that any increase in the separate property assets due to the contribution of such funds likewise remains her separate property. The Texas Family Code provides that spouses may agree to partition or exchange any part of their community property as they desire. Here, the parties had a written agreement establishing the disposition of certain real and personal property. The parties thus agreed that the money in the plans as of the date of the agreement was Diane’s separate property. But, the agreement did not stop there. Paragraph 5(a) of the agreement provided that “[a]ll the income or property (whether from personal effort or otherwise) arising from the separate property owned at the date of [the] marriage . . . or that may later be acquired, shall be the separate property of the owner of the separate property that generated that income, increase, property, or revenue.” The plain language of the parties’ agreement decreed that all income earned by the plan during the marriage was Diane’s separate property � not community property subject to equitable division by the court upon divorce of the parties as Ronnie argues and the trial court held. The court holds that, by agreement of the parties, all assets in the plans were separate property at the inception of the marriage and all later-acquired assets of the plans took on the character of separate property. Thus, the court concludes that Diane was entitled to all assets in the account as her separate property. The court finds that its conclusion is further supported by paragraphs 5(b) and 8 of the agreement. Although paragraph 5(b) recognizes and agrees that all “salary, earnings, and other compensation for personal services or labor” of the parties are community property, paragraph 8 provides that “any payment or contributions by one of us to . . . benefit the separate estate of the other shall not give rise to a claim for reimbursement or an interest in any property purchased by those payments unless we otherwise agree in writing.” There is no later agreement; therefore, the court holds that Ronnie’s share in any community property � such as Diane’s salary � that was contributed to the plans during the marriage was, by agreement, a gift to Diane’s separate property and not community property subject to division in the divorce decree or entitling Ronnie to reimbursement. The court rejects Ronnie’s assertion that the increases to the retirement funds during the parties’ marriage fall under paragraph 7 of the agreement, expressly applying to “Future Property” and paragraph 7(a), expressly applying to “Jointly Owned Property.” The court finds that Diane’s retirement accounts were both separate property at the time of the marriage. Under the inception of title doctrine, the court holds that the retirement accounts did not lose their character as separate property because of the marriage. The court concludes that, when the last sentence of paragraph 7(a) is placed in context, it is clear that paragraph 7(a) concerns an entirely different matter � the parties’ acquisition during marriage of new, jointly owned property with either separate property funds or a combination of separate and community funds � and not the contribution of community funds to the separate estate of a party. Therefore, paragraph 7(a) is inapplicable to this case. At the end of the trial, the trial court ordered each party to be responsible for his own attorney’s fees. As to Diane’s argument that the trial court erred by awarding attorney’s fees to Ronnie in a post-judgment hearing, the court holds that the appellate record does not contain the trial court’s temporary orders or any record of a hearing that occurred after entry of judgment. Accordingly, the court concludes that Diane has waived the complaint for failing to bring forth a sufficient record to show that the trial court abused its discretion. OPINION:Keyes, J.; Nuchia, Keyes, and Bland, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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?


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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.