Cardwell v. Cardwell
195 S.W.3d 856, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 5762, 2006 WL 1792737 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A putative marriage requires good faith, which is negated if a party, aware of a former marriage, fails to make a reasonable inquiry into its dissolution before remarrying. Trial courts retain discretion in property division, applying statutory schemes for economic contribution, and property is presumed community property unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Sharon Ann Cardwell (Wife) married Bruce Gay in 1984 or 1985 and left him in 1986.
- In 1995, Wife married Donald Lee Cardwell (Husband), believing her marriage to Gay had been dissolved.
- In 1999, Wife discovered she was still legally married to Bruce Gay and informed Husband, after which she initiated divorce proceedings against Gay.
- Wife's divorce from Bruce Gay became final on December 7, 1999.
- Husband and Wife separated in 2003.
- During the common-law marriage (after December 7, 1999), over $155,000 in improvements were made to a 120-acre ranch in Melissa, Texas, which was Husband's separate property.
- Husband possessed a Kansas oil and gas venture.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Lee Cardwell (Husband) initiated proceedings seeking a divorce in the trial court.
- Sharon Ann Cardwell (Wife) filed a counter-petition in the trial court.
- The trial court rejected Wife's theory of a putative marriage but concluded the parties had a common law marriage as of December 7, 1999.
- The trial court made a detailed identification and division of the couple’s separate and community property.
- Wife, as Cross-Appellant, appealed the trial court’s rulings concerning the putative marriage.
- Husband, as Appellant, appealed two specific rulings concerning the property division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a ceremonial marriage entered into in good faith, as required to establish a putative marriage, when one party was aware of a prior undissolved marriage but made no reasonable effort to ascertain its legal status before remarrying; and did the trial court abuse its discretion in dividing community property by awarding economic contribution for improvements to separate property and characterizing an asset as community property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fitzgerald
No, a ceremonial marriage is not entered into in good faith to establish a putative marriage if a party, aware of a prior marriage, failed to make a reasonable inquiry into its dissolution; and no, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its property division. The court held that the key to a putative marriage is good faith, which necessitates a reasonable belief that any impediment to the marriage (such as a prior undissolved marriage) does not exist. The trial court, as the sole judge of credibility, was entitled to disbelieve Wife's testimony that she was unaware of the impediment. Furthermore, even absent actual knowledge, the question becomes the reasonableness of the party's belief that the former marriage was dissolved. Wife admitted she took no steps to initiate divorce proceedings against Gay after 1986, did not verify Gay's assurance that he would handle the divorce, and made no inquiry into her marital status even after a second divorce (from Hill) before marrying Husband. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of good faith. Regarding the property division, the court concluded that Wife's claim for improvements made to Husband's separate property ranch was correctly characterized as a claim for 'economic contribution' under the Texas Family Code, rather than a general 'reimbursement' claim. The trial court's application of the principles of economic contribution, including securing the award with an equitable lien, was proper. Given the evidence of over $155,000 in community improvements to the ranch and its appreciated value, the trial court's award of $234,000 to Wife fell within the statutory formula for economic contribution and the court's equitable discretion. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in characterizing the Kansas oil and gas venture as community property. Property possessed during marriage is presumed community property, and Husband failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption, offering only an estate planning document without proof of when or how the asset was procured.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'good faith' requirement for a putative marriage in Texas, underscoring that passive belief in a prior marriage's dissolution is insufficient; an affirmative and reasonable inquiry is necessary. It also provides a practical application of the Texas Family Code's economic contribution statute, distinguishing it from general reimbursement claims and demonstrating how courts use statutory formulas while maintaining equitable discretion in property division. The decision reinforces the high 'clear and convincing evidence' standard required to overcome the community property presumption, highlighting the importance of thorough documentation for separate property claims.
