Opinion
NO. 12-16-00247-CV
06-14-2017
MAKALA CORNETT, APPELLANT v. PAUL CORNETT, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 GREGG COUNTY , TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Makala Cornett appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Paul Cornett. In a single issue, she contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support the judgment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In December 2015, Paul received a $100,000 personal injury settlement as a result of his father's death. At the time of the settlement, Paul did not have a driver's license, identification card, or bank account. Therefore, he arranged for the money to be put into his daughter, Makala's, bank account. After the money was transferred, Makala withdrew money for Paul's use when he asked for it. Paul also allowed her to use some of the money for herself and her mother. After approximately one month, Makala quit giving Paul money and subsequently withdrew the remainder of the money in the form of cashier's checks.
Paul sued Makala, claiming she committed conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust. Makala argued that the $100,000 was a gift from Paul. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Paul and ordered that Paul recover the five remaining checks, in the amount of $9,999.99 each, from Makala. The trial court specifically found, in pertinent part, that: (1) Paul's transfer of the money to Makala created a legal presumption of a gift; and (2) Paul rebutted this presumption, having established by clear and convincing evidence that he did not have the donative intent to make a gift. Makala filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
In her only issue, Makala argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's judgment. Specifically, she contends Paul failed to overcome, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption that the $100,000 deposit was a gift to Makala. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
In a legal sufficiency review where the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence, we must look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that its findings were true. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). We must assume that the fact finder settled disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable fact finder could do so and disregard all evidence that a reasonable fact finder could have disbelieved or found incredible. Id. This does not mean that we must ignore all evidence not supporting the finding, as doing so might bias a clear and convincing analysis. Id.
"A gift is a voluntary transfer of property to another made gratuitously and without consideration." In re Marriage of Moncey , 404 S.W.3d 701, 710 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.). "Three elements are required to establish the existence of a gift: (1) intent to make a gift, (2) delivery of the property, and (3) acceptance of the property." Id. A party claiming a gift has the burden to prove it. Pankhurst v. Weitinger & Tucker , 850 S.W.2d 726, 730 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); Powell v. Powell , 822 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). A presumption of gift arises if a parent delivers possession, conveys title, or purchases property in the name of a child. Woodworth v. Cortez , 660 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Burk v. Turner , 15 S.W. 256, 257 (Tex. 1891). This presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of an absence of donative intent. In re Estate of LaValle , 218 S.W.3d 834, 835 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, pet. denied); Amador v. Berrospe , 961 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. denied). The clear and convincing standard of proof requires "that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Oadra v. Stegall , 871 S.W.2d 882, 891 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). Analysis
On appeal, Makala challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's judgment in favor of Paul. She maintains that Paul did not rebut the presumption of a gift by clear and convincing evidence.
At trial, the court heard two versions of events. First, the trial court heard testimony that the $100,000 was not intended to be a gift. Paul testified that he placed his portion of the settlement into Makala's account because he did not have his own bank account. He further explained that he did not have a valid driver's license or identification card to open up an account. According to Paul, he would call Makala when he needed money and the two would meet at the bank so Makala could make the withdrawal for him. Paul testified that this arrangement worked for approximately one month; however, Makala quit allowing him to withdraw money after she discovered that he had a girlfriend. According to Paul, he and Makala's mother were not getting along prior to the settlement. As a result, Paul testified, he was living in an RV in the front yard but continued to "coparent" with Makala's mother. After Makala and her mother learned Paul had a girlfriend, Makala refused to meet Paul at the bank when asked. After Paul learned that there was $65,000 remaining, he sent Makala a text message telling her to stop spending the money until "next week," which is when Paul would need a withdrawal. Paul denied telling Makala or anyone else that the money was a gift. To support his assertion, Paul testified that he had not had a full-time job in ten years and had no income other than the settlement proceeds.
Jerry Cornett, Paul's brother, also testified that the transfer was not intended as a gift. Jerry testified that he handled the personal injury lawsuit on behalf of the family. According to Jerry, Paul and Makala agreed that (1) Makala would open a special bank account in which to hold the settlement proceeds; (2) Makala would give Paul the money he needed to obtain his driver's license and resolve other matters; and (3) once Paul's affairs were in order, Makala was to release the remainder of the money to him. When the dispute between Makala and Paul arose, Jerry testified that he spoke with Makala and told her to give Paul his money. Jerry further stated that he told Makala that she could keep $5,000 of the money and that he told Paul to let Makala keep $5,000.
Barbara Martin, Paul's sister, and Ashley Martin, Barbara's daughter, testified to a similar understanding of the agreement between Paul and Makala. Barbara testified that Paul and Makala's agreement was supposed to work the same as her arrangement with her daughter. Ashley testified that Barbara received a personal injury settlement that was placed in Ashley's account, but that the money from the settlement belongs to Barbara.
Second, the trial court heard Makala's testimony that the $100,000 deposit was a gift to her from Paul. She testified that Paul expressed, on several occasions, his intention to give her some of the settlement money because he had been unemployed and unable to provide for her financially. Makala further testified that she knew about Paul's girlfriend and that this fact did not impact how she handled the money. She interpreted Paul's text message to mean she needed to decrease her spending, but that the money still belonged to her.
According to Makala, Jerry became concerned about Paul's spending habits and told her to stop giving him money. Makala testified that Jerry was concerned that Paul was spending the money on drugs. Makala then withdrew the remaining money via five cashier's checks in the amount of $9,999.99 each and one check for $4,140.23. She testified that she withdrew the money in those amounts to avoid the federal reporting requirement. Makala stated that she spent one of the checks for $9,999.99 and the $4,140.23 check. The remaining checks were locked in a safe deposit box for later use.
Margaret Washington, Makala's mother, testified that Paul gave the money to Makala as a gift. According to Margaret, Paul told her that he planned to give the money to Makala because he had been unable to provide financial support previously. Margaret further testified that Paul never said that Makala was supposed to hold the money for him. Sonya Sacker, Makala's godmother, testified that she was present during conversations with Paul and that Paul said he was going to give the money to Makala.
As sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, the trial court bore the responsibility of reconciling the conflicts in the evidence and choosing which of these two versions of the facts to believe. See City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 819 (Tex. 2005). Accordingly, the trial court could have reasonably chosen to believe Paul, Jerry, Barbara, and Ashley's testimony that the $100,000 was not intended as a gift to Makala and to disregard Makala's contrary evidence. See id . In doing so, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Paul rebutted the presumption of a gift by providing evidence that he lacked the requisite donative intent to gift the settlement proceeds to Makala. See In re Estate of LaValle , 218 S.W.3d at 835; see also Amador , 961 S.W.2d at 208; see West v . West , No. 13-98-522-CV, 2000 WL 35721234, at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 17, 2000, no pet.) (op., not designated for publication) (holding that testimony no gift was intended sufficient to rebut presumption). Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, we conclude that the trial court could have reasonably formed a firm belief or conviction that Paul rebutted the presumption of a gift. See Oadra , 871 S.W.2d at 891. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's judgment, we overrule Makala's sole issue.
DISPOSITION
Having overruled Makala's sole issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
GREG NEELEY
Justice Opinion delivered June 14, 2017.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2016-98-CCL2)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the Appellant, MAKALA CORNETT, for which execution may issue, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
Greg Neeley, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.