Dobbs v. Dobbs

17 Citing cases

  1. Roberts v. Roberts

    663 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    By making a just and right division of the estate of the parties, a court may consider: The relative earning capacity of the parties, business experience and education of the parties, size of their separate estates, age, health, and physical condition of the parties, and benefits the innocent spouse would have received. Cooper v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App. (1 Houston) dism'd, 513 S.W.2d 229 (1974); Erger v. Erger, Tex.Civ.App. (Ft.W.) NWH, 590 S.W.2d 186 (1979); Dobbs v. Dobbs, Tex.Civ.App. (Tyler) NWH, 449 S.W.2d 119 (1969); Bokhoven v. Bokhoven, Tex.Civ.App. (Tyler) NWH, 559 S.W.2d 142 (1977); Waggener v. Waggener, Tex.Civ.App. (Dallas) NWH, 460 S.W.2d 251 (1970); Roberts v. Roberts, Tex.Civ.App. (Tyler) NWH, 535 S.W.2d 373 (1976); Murff v. Murff, Tex., 615 S.W.2d 696 (1981); Hopkins v. Hopkins, Tex.Civ.App. (Corpus Christi) NWH, 540 S.W.2d 783 (1976). The record reflects appellee is 55 years of age and has health problems; that her daughter has health problems and medical expenses relating to serious injuries suffered in an automobile accident; Appellee has financial difficulties and a lack of steady income; Appellant has a salary of some $40,000.

  2. Conner v. Bean

    630 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 14 times
    Affirming award for anticipatory breach of contract in wife's suit on contractual alimony agreement

    The courts in Texas are vested with wide discretion in the division of property in suit for divorce and may divide the property in such a way as the court deems right, just and proper. Roye v. Roye, 404 S.W.2d 92, 96 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1966, no writ); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1969, no writ); Hearn v. Hearn, 449 S.W.2d 141, 144, 145 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1969, no writ). As stated in Miller : "The trial court, in dividing the property in divorce suit, may take into consideration a number of things including the difference in earning power, capacity and abilities, probable future need for support, fault in breaking up the marriage, and the benefits the innocent spouse would have received from a continuation of the marriage.

  3. Frausto v. Frausto

    611 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 22 times

    However, in an attempt to overcome such difficulties the trial court has wide discretion in dividing the estate of the parties in a divorce decree and may consider many factors including the difference in earning capacity, education and ability of the parties; probable future need for support; fault in breaking up the marriage; and the benefits an innocent spouse may have received from a continuation of the marriage. Hedke v. Hedke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W.2d 21 (1923); Bokhoven v. Bokhoven, 559 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1977, no writ); Copeland v. Copeland, 544 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1976, no writ); Cooper v. Cooper, 513 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1974, no writ); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1969, no writ). However, the trial court is limited by our basic community property laws in making a division as hereinbefore outlined.

  4. Campbell v. Campbell

    586 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    Cooper v. Cooper, 513 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1974, no writ). "Factors to be considered include the disparity of the earning power of the parties, as well as their business opportunities, capacities and abilities; In re Marriage of McCurdy, 489 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1973); the physical condition of the parties, probable future need for support, and educational background; Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1969). The fault in breaking up the marriage and the benefits innocent spouse would have received from a continuation of the marriage are factors which the court may consider.

  5. Bokhoven v. Bokhoven

    559 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 24 times

    The division of community property need not be made equally. Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21 (1923); Roye v. Roye, 404 S.W.2d 92, 95 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1966, n.w.h.); Nelson v. Nelson, 436 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1969, n.w.h.); Smith v. Manger, 449 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1970, n.w.h.); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119, 120 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1969, n.w.h.). The trial court has wide discretion in ordering a division of community property, and there is a presumption the trial court exercised its discretion properly.

  6. Mial v. Mial

    543 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 10 times

    No statement of facts having been filed, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or that its judgment is erroneous. Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App., Tyler 1969, no writ). Points of error one and two are overruled. The judgment of the trial Court is affirmed.

  7. Benedict v. Benedict

    542 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 20 times
    Finding trial court acted within its authority in ordering husband responsible for entire estimated tax liability where he had failed to file tax returns for several years

    The cases are: In re Marriage of McCurdy, 489 S.W.2d 712, 717 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1973, writ dism.); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App., Tyler, 1969, no writ hist.); Keene v. Keene, 445 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1969, writ dism.)

  8. Collins v. Collins

    540 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 5 times
    Holding trial court failed to award correct amount of reimbursement in divorce action because order provided for reimbursement to be taken out of sale of community residence before any distribution was made to parties, resulting in appellant being reimbursed only half of what was owed because payment was to be made out of undivided community funds

    The trial court is vested with wide discretion in the division of community property in divorce cases, and the court is not required to divide community property equally between the parties. Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1969, no writ); Mercer v. Mercer, 503 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1973, no writ). The trial court may divide the property in such a way as will seem right, just and proper to the court. Mea v. Mea, 464 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1971, no writ); Hensley v. Hensley, 496 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1973, no writ). The trial court may also consider the disparity in the earning power of the parties and their business opportunities, capacities and abilities in making a division of the property in a divorce case.

  9. Ramirez v. Ramirez

    524 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    "The trial judge is not required to divide community property equally and a substantial portion of the husband's separate property may be awarded to the wife when the circumstances make such action necessary in connection with bringing about a fair and just division of the property. See Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1969, no writ); Keene v. Keene, 445 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1969, writ dism'd); Roye v. Roye, 404 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1966, no writ); Dillard v. Dillard, 341 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.)."

  10. Whittenburg v. Whittenburg

    523 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975)   Cited 6 times

    The discretion in making this division would undoubtedly involve consideration by the court of the disparity between the respective earning power of each of the parties. Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969, no writ). Affirmed.