in the Matter of the Marriage of Herman Tyeskie and Inger Tyeskie
558 S.W.3d 719 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property acquired during a marriage is presumed to be community property, and a party claiming it as separate property must overcome this presumption by tracing the funds to a separate source with clear and convincing evidence. When separate and community funds are commingled in an account, withdrawals are presumed to be of community funds first.
Facts:
- Herman Tyeskie and Inger Tyeskie were married on January 3, 2009.
- Prior to the marriage, Inger possessed a savings account with a balance of $162,168.61, which was her separate property.
- During the marriage, Inger deposited income from her employment—community property funds—into her checking account and then transferred those funds into her separate savings account, commingling them.
- Between the marriage and 2013, Inger deposited approximately $90,000 to $120,000 of community funds into the savings account.
- In November 2013, a down payment of $52,576.21 was made on the marital home, with the funds being withdrawn from Inger's commingled savings account.
- Herman contributed cash to pay for household utilities and half of the mortgage payments during the marriage.
- Inger also withdrew approximately $300,000 of community funds and gifted them to her adult daughter from a prior relationship.
Procedural Posture:
- Herman Tyeskie filed a petition for divorce against Inger Tyeskie in the 307th District Court of Gregg County, Texas.
- Inger Tyeskie filed a counterpetition for divorce, including a claim for reimbursement to her separate estate for the down payment on the marital home.
- The trial court entered a final decree of divorce, classifying the marital home as community property and finding that Inger had fraudulently removed other community funds.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Herman for his share of the removed funds.
- After Inger failed to comply with the judgment, the trial court entered a post-judgment turnover order without providing prior notice to Inger.
- Inger Tyeskie (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana.
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 party overcome the community property presumption for funds used for a down payment on a marital home when those funds were withdrawn from an account where the party's separate property was commingled with community property, and the party fails to provide clear and convincing evidence tracing the withdrawal to the separate property source?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Moseley
No. A party fails to overcome the community property presumption for a down payment made from a commingled account without providing clear and convincing evidence tracing the funds to a separate property source. Property possessed by either spouse during marriage is presumed to be community property. To rebut this presumption, the proponent must trace the asset to a separate property source with clear and convincing evidence. Inger commingled her separate property funds with substantial community property funds (her income) in her savings account. When funds are commingled, the law presumes that community funds are withdrawn first. The evidence showed that over $90,000 in community funds had been deposited into the account before the $52,576.21 down payment was withdrawn. Because the amount of community funds deposited exceeded the withdrawal amount, and Inger provided no evidence tracing the down payment to her separate funds, she failed to rebut the presumption that the down payment was made with community funds. The court also held that Inger's separate due process challenge to a post-judgment turnover order was waived because she failed to raise the constitutional complaint at the trial court.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high evidentiary burden required to rebut Texas's strong community property presumption. It underscores the critical importance of tracing and serves as a cautionary example of the legal consequences of commingling separate and community assets without meticulous record-keeping. The court's straightforward application of the 'community-out-first' rule demonstrates how courts resolve ambiguity in favor of the community estate, making it difficult for a spouse to later 'unscramble' commingled funds. Furthermore, the opinion reinforces the procedural rule that even fundamental constitutional claims, like due process, must be preserved at the trial level to be eligible for appellate review.
Unlock the full brief for in the Matter of the Marriage of Herman Tyeskie and Inger Tyeskie