Let the clichés flow: It’s a dog-eat-dog world. Every dog has his day. A dog is man’s best friend. On Aug. 25, the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin issued a memorandum opinion affirming a trial court’s judgment that allowed Brooke Ashley Calder to keep a Chihuahua named Clementine. Daniel Naeter Calder, who filed for a divorce from Brooke in 2009, had appealed to the 3rd Court, challenging a trial court’s judgment confirming that Clementine was Brooke’s separate property. The memorandum opinion was issued by a panel of three, including Justices Bob Pemberton and Alan Waldrop and the opinion’s author, Chief Justice J. Woodfin “Woodie” Jones . Jones wrote that Clementine was purchased before the marriage took place and therefore was separate, not community, property. The partners in the dissolving marriage agreed about that but disagreed about whose separate property Clementine is. Why? Prior to the marriage, the couple commingled their separate funds in Daniel’s bank account; the disagreement is based on whose money purchased Clementine, the opinion noted. Jones wrote that Daniel asserted on appeal that no evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the funds Brooke put into Daniel’s account were held there for her benefit. Daniel and Brooke testified that, after putting her paychecks into his account, he gave her the money immediately or as she requested it, Jones wrote. She put $948 into the account a few days before she purchased Clementine, and she testified that Daniel agreed to let her buy a dog only if her own money paid for it, according to the opinion. The 3rd Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment that Clementine belonged to Brooke. Zachary Brandl , an associate with Weinman & Associates in Austin, represents Daniel. Asked how much his client spent on appealing the case, Brandl says, “Too much.” He says he advised his client not to pursue an appeal of the trial court’s judgment. Brooke’s lawyer, Austin solo James Arth , says he handled the case pro bono as did Amy Lambert , an associate with Austin’s Law Office of Jennifer Tull who wrote the brief. Lambert says it was her first appellate brief. Asked why she chipped in her work pro bono, she says, “I have a dog. When I realized the case was going to appeal, I couldn’t leave her [Brooke] high and dry.”
Garage Sale
Houston plaintiffs attorney Tony Buzbee has come a long way since he purchased his first ride as a teen: a 1974 Jeep CJ5. “It was crap. No air conditioning, no heating. I’d smoke cigars for my heater,” he says of the beleaguered car he paid for himself from working after-school jobs. Buzbee is now a successful Houston plaintiffs attorney with a bank account big enough to buy a stable of exotic luxury cars, including a Bentley, a couple of Lamborghinis and a Ferrari, among others. Yet last month he had a change of heart about owning all of those fancy cars. “I turned 42. And I obviously can buy whatever I want. And I decided, how long am I really going to ride around in a Lamborghini?” he says. “You can only own so many cars, and you can only drive one at a time, unless you’re really talented. And I’m not that talented,” says Buzbee of Houston’s Buzbee Law Firm . So instead of selling his 13 extra cars, worth an estimated $3.5 million, he decided to give them all to The Jesse Tree, a Galveston nonprofit, faith-based charity that assists underprivileged people in receiving health care and social services. Buzbee, who sits on the board of directors for The Jesse Tree, says the cars will be auctioned and the proceeds will go to the charity. “Hopefully, maybe, members of the bar will buy these cars. One of the cars has my named stitched in the seat, but of course we can have that removed,” Buzbee says. He’s still storing the cars until the auction. And his donation means that lots of garage space at the Buzbee house will be freed up for a new place to play pingpong with his sons, he says. “I’m just going to keep one car,” Buzbee says. And it’s not a ’74 Jeep, he adds. “It’s a Maybach.”
