Jensen v. Jensen
1984 Tex. LEXIS 321, 27 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 256, 665 S. W.2d 107 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In community property states, when separate property stock appreciates during marriage due to the time, toil, and effort of a spouse, the community estate is entitled to reimbursement for the value of that effort, less any adequate compensation already received by the community for such efforts.
Facts:
- On March 21, 1975, Robert Lee Jensen formed RU Printing Company, Inc. (RU) and acquired 48,455 shares of its stock.
- On May 16, 1975, RU Printing Co., Inc. acquired Newspaper Enterprises, Inc., which the trial court found to be a "unique business opportunity."
- Robert Lee Jensen and Burlene Parks Jensen married on July 21, 1975.
- At all pertinent times during the marriage, Robert Lee Jensen was the key man in the operation of RU Printing Co., Inc., which was a holding company whose sole assets were shares of Newspaper Enterprises, Inc.
- Robert Lee Jensen received compensation from RU Printing Co., Inc. in the form of salary, bonuses, and dividends, ranging from approximately $64,000 in 1976 to $115,000 in 1979.
- The successful operations of RU Printing Co., Inc. were primarily due to the time, toil, and effort of Robert Lee Jensen.
- The Jensens separated on June 3, 1979, and divorced on May 21, 1980.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Lee Jensen and Burlene Parks Jensen were divorced on May 21, 1980, by a decree from the trial court that provided 48,455 shares of stock in RU Printing Co., Inc. (acquired by Mr. Jensen prior to marriage) and any increase in its value during marriage were Mr. Jensen's separate property, denying Mrs. Jensen any interest.
- The court of appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the community should be compensated for the stock's appreciated value because it was primarily due to Mr. Jensen's time, toil, and effort (Mr. Jensen was the appellant, Mrs. Jensen the appellee at this stage).
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 the community estate have a right to reimbursement for the appreciation in value of corporate stock, owned by one spouse before marriage as separate property, when that appreciation is primarily due to the time, toil, and effort of a spouse during the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Wallace, Justice
Yes, the community estate is entitled to reimbursement for the appreciation in value of separate property stock when that appreciation is primarily due to the time, toil, and effort of a spouse during the marriage, to the extent that the community was not adequately compensated for such efforts. The court adopts the "reimbursement" theory over the "community ownership" theory, concluding it better aligns with Texas constitutional, statutory, and case law that maintains the separate nature of property owned before marriage (Art. XVI, § 15; Welder v. Lambert). Under this theory, the stock remains separate property, but the community is reimbursed for the value of the time and effort expended by either spouse to enhance the separate estate, beyond what is reasonably necessary for management and preservation, and less any remuneration (salary, bonus, dividends) received by the community for that effort. The court found the trial court's finding that Mr. Jensen was "adequately and reasonably compensated" to be without adequate support, as the expert's opinion was based primarily on Mr. Jensen’s stock ownership rather than the value of his services. Therefore, the case is remanded for the trial court to determine the specific amount of reimbursement owed to the community, if any, for Mr. Jensen's uncompensated efforts.
Concurring - Robertson, Justice
Yes, the community estate is entitled to reimbursement for the appreciation in value of separate property stock when that appreciation is primarily due to the time, toil, and effort of a spouse during the marriage, to the extent that the community was not adequately compensated for such efforts. Justice Robertson concurs in the result, noting that the Court remanded the case in the interest of justice despite Mrs. Jensen not specifically pleading for reimbursement, contrasting this with Vallone v. Vallone, where a similar failure to plead did not result in a remand for that issue. He observes that this decision signals a return to a more liberal construction of divorce pleadings, allowing trial judges greater freedom to achieve just decisions in complex family law cases, a policy he supports despite his prior position in Vallone.
Analysis:
This case definitively establishes the "reimbursement" theory in Texas for community claims against enhanced separate property, rejecting the "community ownership" theory. This clarifies the legal framework for divorces involving significant separate assets enhanced by marital labor, emphasizing that separate property retains its character, but the community must be compensated for its uncompensated efforts. The ruling also underscores the importance of proper evidence to support findings of "adequate compensation" and signals a potentially more liberal approach to divorce pleadings, which could broaden the scope of relief available to parties in such cases without hyper-technical pleading requirements.
