Frausto v. Frausto
611 S. W.2d 656 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A professional education acquired during marriage is not considered community property subject to division upon divorce, nor is a spouse generally entitled to reimbursement for community expenses incurred for the other spouse's education under a typical reimbursement theory.
Facts:
- Manuel Jesus Frausto and Maria Lourdes Frausto were married.
- During the early part of their marriage, both Manuel and Maria were school teachers.
- Manuel and Maria agreed that Manuel would enter medical school.
- Maria continued to work as a school teacher while Manuel obtained his medical education, and her earnings covered a considerable portion of the marriage's expenses during that period.
- Manuel obtained his medical doctor's license to practice medicine.
- Two children were born of the marriage, one in 1973 and one in 1975.
- Manuel's work record as a physician was spotty, at times he was unemployed, and his earnings were sometimes not substantial, partly due to leg injuries.
- Despite their combined earnings, no large community estate was accumulated by the couple.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria Lourdes Frausto filed for divorce against Manuel Jesus Frausto.
- A state trial court granted the divorce, appointed Maria as managing conservator of the children, ordered Manuel to pay child support and attorney's fees, and made a division of community property.
- The trial court's divorce decree also ordered Manuel to pay Maria $20,000, payable monthly with interest, 'as a part of the division of the estate of the parties and as reimbursement for petitioner’s share of the community expense for respondent’s education.'
- Manuel Jesus Frausto appealed the trial court's order requiring him to pay $20,000 to Maria Lourdes Frausto to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a professional education acquired by one spouse during marriage constitute community property divisible upon divorce, or entitle the supporting spouse to reimbursement for community expenses incurred for that education?
Opinions:
Majority - Klingeman, Justice
No, a professional education acquired during marriage is not a property right divisible upon divorce, and reimbursement for community expenses for such an education is not justified under a typical reimbursement theory. The court noted that there were no Texas cases directly on point but found persuasive authority from other community property states like California (Todd v. Todd, In re Marriage of Aufmuth) and Colorado (In re Marriage of Graham) which held that an education is not an item of property capable of division, as it would improperly require division of post-dissolution separate earnings. The court further relied on Nail v. Nail, which held that professional goodwill does not possess value separate from the person and would be extinguished upon death, retirement, or disablement, deeming it comparable. Under Texas law, a trial court's authority to divide property is limited to the 'estate of the parties,' which refers to community property alone, and cannot divest spouses of separate property. Awards of future monthly payments must be referable to property existing at the time of marriage, and awards based on future earnings are invalid as they constitute an award of separate property. The court clarified that typical reimbursement involves funds from one estate (separate or community) used to pay a debt of another estate or to enhance property of another estate, which was not the case here, as the education was paid for from community funds and is not a property right. The court also pointed out the absence of pleadings seeking reimbursement. While acknowledging the inequities that may arise for a supporting spouse, the court stated that the trial court has wide discretion in dividing the existing community estate, considering factors such as differences in earning capacity, education, ability, and probable future need for support, but this discretion is limited by fundamental community property laws. Therefore, the trial court’s award of $20,000 as a division of the estate or reimbursement for education expenses constituted an abuse of discretion. The portion of the divorce decree pertaining to the division of property was reversed and remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion; all other parts of the decree were affirmed.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Texas community property law by explicitly clarifying that a professional degree acquired during marriage is not a divisible marital asset, nor are community funds spent on it directly reimbursable. This distinction prevents the division of future earning capacity, which the court designates as separate property, thereby maintaining a clear boundary between community and separate estates. While acknowledging the potential for inequity for spouses who contribute to their partner's education, the ruling guides trial courts to address such disparities by equitably dividing existing community property, allowing for consideration of factors like differing earning capacities and educational advantages. The decision reinforces the conservative interpretation of community property, limiting what can be divided to tangible assets and rejecting claims on intangible human capital or future earnings as part of the marital estate.
