Dickinson v. Dickinson
324 S.W. 3d 653 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse's remainder interest in real property held in a trust that is acquired by devise during the marriage is the spouse's separate property. A trial court abuses its discretion in a divorce proceeding by mischaracterizing such an interest as community property and divesting the spouse of it.
Facts:
- Larry Dickinson's father established a trust before his death, with its primary asset being real property in California.
- The trust granted a life estate in the property to Dorothy M. Cawley.
- Upon the termination of Cawley's life estate, the trust directs the trustee to distribute the property in equal shares to Larry Dickinson and his sister.
- During his marriage to Mary Dickinson, Larry's father died, causing Larry's future remainder interest in the trust property to vest.
- If Larry dies before the life estate terminates, his share is designated to go to his sister or her issue.
- Larry and Mary Dickinson subsequently sought a divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Dickinson and Mary Dickinson filed for divorce in a Texas trial court.
- Larry Dickinson filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which placed an automatic stay on the divorce proceedings.
- The Bankruptcy Court modified the stay, authorizing the trial court to finalize the divorce and make 'recommendations' regarding the division of community property.
- The trial court signed a final divorce decree that, as a recommendation to the Bankruptcy Court, awarded Mary one-half of Larry's remainder interest in the California real property.
- Larry filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the court had improperly divided his separate property.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Larry Dickinson, as appellant, timely appealed the property division to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Mary Dickinson as the appellee.
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 mischaracterizing a spouse's remainder interest in a trust, acquired by devise, as community property and awarding a portion of it to the other spouse in a divorce decree?
Opinions:
Majority - Livingston, C.J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. Under Texas law, a court cannot divest a party of his or her separate property in a divorce. The court reasoned that property acquired by a spouse during marriage through gift or devise is constitutionally defined as that spouse's separate property. The character of property is determined by the inception of title, which for Larry's remainder interest occurred when his father died, at which point he acquired the interest by devise. The court rejected the argument that Larry had judicially admitted the property was community, finding his statements in pleadings and discovery were ambiguous and not the clear, unequivocal statement required for such an admission. Because the remainder interest was obtained by devise, it is Larry's separate property, and any increase in its value is also separate. Therefore, the trial court erred by mischaracterizing this separate property as community property and awarding half of it to Mary.
Concurring - Dauphinot, J.
The author concurred without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent protection of separate property under the Texas Constitution in divorce proceedings. It clarifies that a future, vested remainder interest acquired by inheritance is definitively separate property, with its character determined at the moment the right vests (inception of title), not when it becomes possessory. The decision also sets a high bar for what constitutes a judicial admission regarding property characterization, requiring a statement to be deliberate and unequivocal. This precedent limits the ability of trial courts to divide assets acquired by one spouse through inheritance, ensuring that such property remains with the inheriting spouse upon dissolution of the marriage.
