Opinion
04-21-00581-CV
07-06-2022
Gabriel NUNEZ, Appellant v. Graciela Vasquez De NUNEZ, Appellee
From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021-0091-FAM Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
This is a restricted appeal from a default divorce decree in which the trial court, among other things, awarded a 2009 Chrysler automobile and a 401K retirement account to appellee, Graciela Vasquez de Nunez. Appellant, Gabriel Nunez, contends the trial court erred by awarding the automobile and retirement account to Graciela in the absence of any evidence establishing their value. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
DISCUSSION
In Gabriel's prayer for relief, he asked this court to reverse and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the division of the parties' community property. Rather than file an appellee's brief, Graciela filed an "Advisory Confessing Error in the Underlying Proceedings" in which she "confesse[ed] error in the underlying proceedings, adopt[ed Gabriel's] Statement of the Case, Issues Presented, Statement of Facts, entitlement to Restricted Appeal, Argument and Conclusions and ask[ed this court] to grant the restricted appeal, grant the divorce, deny Attorney's fee for [Gabriel's] failure to appear at the final hearing of the parties' divorce and remand this case to the 63rd Judicial District Court of Val Verde County, Texas for proceedings consistent with this Court's ruling."
"If the division of marital property lacks sufficient evidence in the record to support it, then the trial court's division is an abuse of discretion." Wilson v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 533, 537 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied); see also Sandone v. Miller-Sandone, 116 S.W.3d 204, 207-08 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.) (holding trial court abused its discretion in dividing property because there was no evidence of community estate's value). Having reviewed the record, we agree the trial court erred in its division of community property in the absence of evidence on the value of the property. Furthermore, it appears Graciela agrees with Gabriel's contentions regarding the trial court's division of the parties' community property. See Dana v. Diamante Members Club, Inc., No. 05-20-00828-CV, 2022 WL 152659, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Jan. 18, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Appellee concedes error on the face of the record supporting reversal and remand of the case.").
CONCLUSION
We reverse that portion of the Final Decree of Divorce in which the trial court entered "orders regarding the parties' community . . . property." We remand the cause to the trial court for reconsideration of a new just and right division of the parties' community property in accordance with this opinion. The Final Decree of Divorce is otherwise affirmed, including the provision granting the parties' divorce.