Opinion
No. 05-03-01335-CV
Opinion Filed July 6, 2004.
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 380-52610-02.
Affirm.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal involves a dissolution of marriage. In her first issue, appellant claims the trial court violated section 7.001 of the Texas Family Code when it divided the community estate of the parties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 7.001 (Vernon 1998). In her second issue, she claims the trial court erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The facts are well-known to the parties and we do not recite them in detail. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in the law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex.R.App.P. 47.1. We affirm.
Applicable Law
Section 7.001 of the Texas Family Code provides:
§ 7.001 General Rule of Property Division
In a decree of divorce or annulment, the court shall order a division of the estate of the parties in a manner that the court deems just and right, having due regard for the rights of each party and any children of the marriage.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 7.001 (Vernon 1998).
A trial court has broad discretion in dividing the marital estate at divorce. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981). On appeal, we presume the trial court used its discretion and will reverse the cause only where the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W.2d 162, 173 (Tex. 1975); Bell v. Bell, 513 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex. 1974). The community debts and liabilities are part of the community estate which must be considered in making a just and right division of community property. Walston v. Walston, 971 S.W.2d 687, 693-94 (Tex. App.-Waco 1998, writ ref'd).
Application of the Law to the Facts
In this case, appellant complains the court below erred by awarding a disproportionate share of the estate to appellee. In her brief, appellant insists the trial court awarded $481,799.00 to appellee husband, but only awarded $92,869.82 to appellant wife. In the alternative, and using appellee husband's inventory and appraisement, appellant asserts the court awarded the husband $481,799.00 and the wife $110,725.59. However, appellant omits the community liabilities from her calculations regarding division of the community estate. She also omits approximately $150,000 worth of jewelry she possesses. When community liabilities are factored into the equation, the total awarded to appellee husband is drastically reduced. When two mortgages totaling $158,584.00, an automobile lien of $3,059.00, and credit card debts of $97,097.19 are taken into account, the husband's share is actually $281,058.81. Using the wife's inventory and appraisement, including her jewelry and a $347 automobile lien, her share then becomes $242,522.82. Using the husband's inventory and appraisement, her share is $260,378.59. Thus, the difference in the estate awarded is actually between $20,680.22, using the husband's figures and $38,535.99, using the wife's figures. We conclude appellant has not shown the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the community estate. We overrule appellant's first issue.
Husband testified to value of the jewelry. Wife did not contest the valuation, but claimed it was separate property. As the judge was the trier of fact, it was up to the court to make a credibility determination.
We have additionally added a third home's net equity of $58,000 based on the husband's inventory and appraisement. Furthermore, the valuation of a Mercedes is reduced from $35,000 to $3,500 due to a typographical error made by the parties.
If the net equity on the third home is based on the wife's inventory and appraisement, it would total $33,000. Thus, the difference in the value of property awarded to the parties would be respectively reduced further.
In appellant's second issue, she claims the trial court erred when it did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant has waived her claim because she did not timely file her notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Curtis v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 20 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We overrule appellant's second issue.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.