Carter v. Carter
736 S.W. 2d 775 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property acquired before marriage or traceable to a pre-marital acquisition, such as through stock conversions or by the inception of title rule for real estate, retains its separate property character, provided the claiming spouse overcomes the community property presumption by clearly tracing the original separate property with factually sufficient evidence.
Facts:
- In April 1970, Donald H. Carter, Jr.'s father made a gift to him of 159 shares of Milk Proteins, Inc. (MPI) stock.
- On October 29, 1974, Donald signed an earnest money contract for a house in Montgomery County, Texas, and secured it with a $1,000 check drawn on his separate account.
- Nancy Marie Carter and Donald H. Carter, Jr. were married on December 7, 1974.
- On January 15, 1975, the closing for the Montgomery County house took place, and both Donald and Nancy signed the note and deed of trust, with Donald paying the down payment from his separate account.
- In 1976, Stauffer Chemical Company purchased MPI, converting Donald's 159 MPI shares into 4,645 shares of Stauffer stock, and Stauffer had a two-for-one stock split in 1979, doubling his shares to 9,290.
- Donald later sold some Stauffer shares, using some proceeds for community debts and living expenses, and used the remaining shares as collateral for a separate margin account, from which he bought additional stocks and a van.
- Nancy and Donald separated around July 15, 1983.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Marie Carter and Donald H. Carter, Jr. were divorced.
- The trial court entered a divorce decree that included a division of their property.
- At Nancy Marie Carter's request, the trial court filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
- Nancy Marie Carter (appellant) appealed the trial court's division of property to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), challenging the characterization of certain stocks and a house as Donald H. Carter, Jr.'s (appellee) separate property.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by characterizing certain stocks and a house as the husband's separate property in a divorce proceeding, despite the community property presumption?
Opinions:
Majority - Sears, Justice
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in characterizing the stocks and house as Donald H. Carter, Jr.'s separate property. For the stock, the court found Donald provided factually sufficient evidence to trace his original 159 shares of MPI stock, received as a gift before marriage, through their conversion to Stauffer stock, a subsequent stock split, and various transactions. This evidence included his testimony and tax returns noting the stock as his separate property, successfully overcoming the community property presumption. The court clarified that the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for tracing is equivalent to a 'factually sufficient evidence' standard. For the house, the court applied the 'inception of title' rule, determining that the property's character as separate was established when Donald signed the earnest money contract and paid a deposit from his separate funds prior to the marriage. The fact that both spouses signed the note and deed of trust after marriage did not alter the property's separate character; it merely entitled the community estate to reimbursement for community funds expended on the property, which Nancy received. The court also found that any presumption of a gift to Nancy by placing her name on the deed was rebutted by Donald's testimony that he did not intend a gift and was unfamiliar with Texas community property laws. The court affirmed the overall division of property as just and right and rejected the argument for a constructive trust due to lack of pleading and supporting evidence.
Analysis:
This case is significant for reinforcing the strict application of Texas community property law, particularly the 'inception of title' rule for real estate and the rigorous tracing requirements for separate personal property. It underscores that the character of property is determined at the earliest moment a right to acquire it arises, not necessarily when title formally passes or when community funds contribute. The ruling also clarifies the evidentiary standard for overcoming the community property presumption, equating 'clear and convincing evidence' with 'factually sufficient evidence' in this context, providing guidance for future cases involving tracing assets in divorce. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the mere act of both spouses signing a deed or financing documents does not automatically convert separate property to community property, but rather creates a right to reimbursement for the community estate.
