Newberry v. Newberry
2011 WL 4062505, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7493, 351 S.W.3d 552 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pattern of non-physical misconduct, including viewing pornography against a spouse's wishes and conduct supporting a finding of adultery, can constitute cruel treatment sufficient to grant a fault-based divorce and justify a disproportionate division of the community estate.
Facts:
- Ruel Newberry and Brisa Newberry were married on September 1, 2002, and later moved to El Paso, Texas.
- During the marriage, Brisa Newberry caught Ruel Newberry viewing pornographic materials and masturbating on numerous occasions, starting in 2003.
- Despite counseling, Ruel Newberry admitted to Brisa that he had an addiction to viewing pornography and continued the behavior.
- Ruel Newberry attended a party where he went into a room with his high school sweetheart, Liza, and stayed with her with the door closed and lights off for over twenty minutes, which he later admitted to Brisa.
- Brisa Newberry discovered a new laptop on which Ruel Newberry had created an alias and a new e-mail address to communicate with another woman, telling her that he was no longer in a relationship and was 'available'.
- Ruel Newberry withdrew all funds, totaling $32,362.17, from his Raytheon 401(k) retirement account after separating from Brisa.
- Ruel Newberry incurred a $21,069 debt on a Bank of America line of credit without Brisa's knowledge.
Procedural Posture:
- Brisa Newberry (Petitioner) filed for divorce from Ruel Newberry (Respondent) in a Texas trial court.
- Ruel Newberry filed a counterpetition for divorce, also seeking a disproportionate division of the community estate.
- After a bench trial, the trial court granted the divorce, finding Ruel Newberry at fault on the grounds of adultery and cruelty.
- The trial court ordered a disproportionate division of the community estate, awarding a larger share to Brisa Newberry.
- Upon Ruel Newberry's request, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its judgment.
- Ruel Newberry (Appellant) appealed the trial court's final divorce decree to the Texas Court of Appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the fault findings and the property division was unjust. Brisa Newberry is 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:
Is the evidence of a husband's habitual pornography use and a specific encounter with another woman legally and factually sufficient to support a trial court's findings of cruelty and adultery, thereby justifying a disproportionate division of the community estate in the wife's favor?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice David Wellington Chew
Yes, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's findings of cruelty and adultery. Adultery can be established through circumstantial evidence, and a fact-finder's determination of witness credibility is given deference. Here, the wife's testimony regarding the husband's admission of being in a closed, dark room with another woman for an extended period is sufficient circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, cruel treatment is conduct that renders living together 'insupportable.' The husband's persistent viewing of pornography despite his wife's objections and attempts at counseling, combined with his communications with another woman and the evidence supporting the adultery claim, collectively constitute cruelty sufficient to grant a divorce on that ground and justify a disproportionate property division.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that 'cruelty' as a fault ground for divorce in Texas is not limited to physical abuse. It demonstrates that a cumulative series of non-physical acts, such as habitual pornography use, emotional infidelity, and actions creating a strong inference of adultery, can collectively render a marriage 'insupportable.' The decision solidifies the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in weighing witness testimony and circumstantial evidence for fault findings. Consequently, this precedent empowers trial judges to make disproportionate property divisions based on patterns of misconduct that cause significant emotional distress, even without direct proof of adultery or physical harm.
