Appeal Property Division

Texas Appeals Court Partially Upholds, Partially Reverses Trial Court Decision in Property Dispute Over Dog

February 1, 2023 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case involving a property dispute over the ownership of a miniature Schnauzer (the Canine), between two people that briefly dated, Alysse Barlow and Kendall Richardson, the court partially upheld and partially reversed the trial court decision. At trial, Richardson was awarded sole ownership of the Canine and attorney’s fees in the amount of $12,000, and ordered to pay Barlow $600 as consideration for her 50% ownership interest in the Canine. On appeal, Barlow asserted three issues, stating that the trial court erred (1) in awarding the Canine to Richardson because Barlow is the sole owner of same, (2) in awarding Richardson attorney’s fees, and (3) in awarding her less than the fair market value of the Canine. The appellate court reversed the award of attorney’s fees and rendered a take-nothing judgment on the request for attorney’s fees. The appellate court affirmed the remained of the trial court judgment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the two parties were in a dating relationship for a short period of time. After their relationship ended, a dispute arose regarding the Canine, who was acquired from Barlow’s employer, Petland, during the relationship. Richardson initiated a suit claiming a 50% ownership interest in the Canine, seeking to partition her interest in the same under Chapter 23 of the Texas Property Code. Barlow answered, denying Richardson’s claim of ownership, and asserted claims against Richardson for conversion, trespass to chattels, and fraud. At trial, both Richardson and Barlow testified, as did Richardson’s mother and several Petland employees. The trial court rendered judgment awarding Richardson sole ownership of the Canine and attorney’s fees amounting to $12,000 and ordered Richardson to pay Barlow $600 as consideration for her 50% ownership interest in the Canine. Barlow filed an appeal following the decision.

The Decision

On appeal, Barlow asserted three issues, stating that the trial court erred (1) in awarding the Canine to Richardson because Barlow is the sole owner of same, (2) in awarding Richardson attorney’s fees, and (3) in awarding her less than the fair market value of the Canine. On Barlow’s first and third issues, she challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding of Richardson’s ownership interest in the Canine and the amount that the court awarded Barlow as compensation for her ownership interest. Here, as the Canine was not able to be divided-in-kind, the court found that it was appropriate to award the property to one party, and require them to compensate the other party financially for their ownership interest.

Can I appeal the property division from my divorce trial?

February 23, 2015 | by Guest and Gray Law Firm

What if I don’t like how the court divided the property in my divorce? Can I appeal it?

You can try and appeal the courts division of your property in a divorce settlement but the appeals court will have a certain standard that they will use when reviewing the trial court’s decision. The appellate court is going to review the court’s decision by using an abuse of discretion standard. What this means is that the appellate court will review the case and make sure there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to base its division of property on. Then, based on that evidence, the appellate court will decide if the trial court’s division was reasonable. If the trial court can show that its decision is based on meaningful and firm evidence, then the appellate court will not overrule the trial court’s division of property.

In my divorce, the court did not divide the property equally, is this fair?

The Judge Did Not Divide the Assets Fairly in My Divorce, Can I Appeal?

April 23, 2014 | by Guest and Gray Law Firm

You have just finished a long bench trial in your divorce and you do not feel that the trial court was correct in its division of your assets and liabilities. In fact, you feel that the judge was completely wrong and you got the short end of the stick. So, you wonder what you can do about it. You absolutely can appeal, but you have a short window frame in order to do so and it is imperative you take certain steps in appealing.

The 7^th District Court of Appeals in Amarillo makes this fact abundantly clear in Kenneth Dale Rodgers, Appellant vs. Mary Elaine Rodgers, Appellee in determining whether or not (a) “the trial court abused its discretion in the division of the property” which (b) “materially affected a just and right division of the marital estate.” In that case, the husband was very unhappy with the property division and he appealed. However, the husband failed to request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court within the required amount of time. Therefore, the appellate court had no idea what the basis of the trial court’s ruling was and was forced to go along with it. This is because, as the Court of Appeals held, you must request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court and the trial court must then file those within a certain period of time. This allows the Court of Appeals to determine why the trial court held what it held. The record sometimes helps, but findings of fact and conclusions of law are obviously more solid and preferred by the appellate courts.

When you have a bench trial (trial before judge, not jury), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 296 and 297 mandate that you must file your request for findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court “within twenty days after the judgment is signed” and then the trial court must “file its findings of fact and conclusions of law within twenty days after a timely request has been made.” If you fail to do this, then “the trial court is presumed to have made all findings of fact necessary to support its judgment, and it must be affirmed on any legal theory that is supported by the evidence.” Rodgers v. Rodgers.