Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Jose (H) and Socorro (P) were married in Mexico in 1958. In 1971, H met D and commenced an affair with her that continued to the time of trial. In 1983, while still married to P, H participated in a ceremonial marriage with D. In 1984, their first child was born. After that time, H supported D and the child, plus two more children he had with her. H earned a very high income through the operation of his Texas business, Farm Supply House, Inc. H had sole management and control of this company and the income it generated. He also owned and controlled other businesses, including a ranch in California, the Quintana Horse Ranch in Seguin, Texas, where he bred, stabled, and trained horses, five restaurants, a packing plant, and two boutiques in California called Osuna's. P had no involvement in or knowledge of the management of these businesses. In September 1985, H purchased a house for P and the children. H paid $ 164,465.32 drawn on the Quintana Horse Ranch business account for the downpayment. In October, he paid $20,992.51 to furnish the house. These funds also came from the Quintana Horse Ranch business account. Over the next seven years, Jose made the monthly $1800 mortgage payment on the house. In November 1994, P paid $83,000 to refinance the Hidden View house. The record is not clear what precipitated the action, but it is apparent that sometime after 1994, the house was foreclosed upon, resulting in a surplus of $26,400.
In 1985, H purchased two Mercedes Benz automobiles for $12,500 each. Approximately five years later, he sold one of the automobiles to D for $5,000 but continued to drive the car. In 1994, shortly before P filed for divorce, H purchased D a new Dodge minivan for which he paid approximately $17,000 in cash. The court granted H and P a divorce and awarded to P the house in which she resided, the $26,400 in the court's registry, the 1985 Mercedes Benz, and the 1994 Dodge minivan. The court also awarded P a joint and several liability judgment in the amount of $460,000, representing money that H had allegedly given to D during 1994 in fraud of the community estate. Both P and D appealed. As for the $460,000 D asserts error in that: (1) there was no evidence the funds were taken from the community estate; (2) any evidence of the transfers was inadmissible and improperly admitted; (3) P did not prove as a matter of law the transfers were a fraud on the community; and (4) D should be liable for only one-half of the amount of the alleged transfers.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co