"[C]ommunity property is subject to the joint management, control and disposition of the spouses unless the spouses provide otherwise by power of attorney in writing or other agreement." Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (citing Tex.Fam. Code § 3.102(c)).
Constructive fraud does not require an intent to defraud. Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).
See, e.g., Hubbard v. Shankle, 138 S.W.3d 474, 483 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) ("Constructive fraud is the breach of a legal or equitable duty that the law declares fraudulent because it violates a fiduciary relationship."); Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex.App.-Houston 2003, pet. denied) (same); In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583, 586 n. 3 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (same); Shwiff v. Priest, 650 S.W.2d 894, 902 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (same); Thames v. Johnson, 614 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1981, no writ) (same); Carnes v. Meador, 533 S.W.2d 365, 370 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (same).See, e.g., Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342, 377 (Tex. 1999) ("Constructive fraud is most frequently found in a breach of a fiduciary or confidential relationship."
, this sole-management presumption protects third parties who rely on the spouse's authority to deal with the property.” Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App. 2003) (citing Tex. Fam. Code § 3.104; In re McCloy, 296 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2002)) (internal citations omitted).
As such, a third party might rely on the single spouse's approval of a deed transferring title. SeeJean v. Tyson-Jean , 118 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet denied) ; In re McCloy , 296 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2002) ; Mustang Minerals, LLC v. Houston Trust Co. , No. 03-17-00152-CV, 2018 WL 454735, at *2 (Tex.App.--Austin Jan. 11, 2018, pet denied) (mem.op.)(collecting cases). And here, the Austin property was held only in Sib's name.
As such, a third party might rely on the single spouse's approval of a deed transferring title. See Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 5-6 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet denied); In re McCloy, 296 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2002); Mustang Minerals, LLC v. Houston Trust Co., No. 03-17-00152-CV, 2018 WL 454735, at *2 (Tex.App.--Austin Jan. 11, 2018, pet denied)(mem. op.)(collecting cases).
A presumption of constructive fraud arises when one spouse disposes of the other spouse's interest in community property without the other's knowledge or consent. Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied); Mazique, 742 S.W.2d at 808. The disposing spouse then bears the burden of proof to show fairness in disposing of community assets.
Constructive fraud does not require an intent to defraud but is instead the breach of a legal or equitable duty that the law declares fraudulent because it violates a fiduciary relationship. Id.; see Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). A presumption of constructive fraud arises when one spouse disposes of the other spouse's interest in community property without the other's knowledge or consent.
Constructive fraud, does not require an intent to defraud, but is instead the breach of a legal or equitable duty which the law declares fraudulent because it violates a fiduciary relationship. Id.; Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). A presumption of constructive fraud arises when one spouse disposes of the other spouse's interest in community property without the other's knowledge or consent.
As the magistrate judge pointed out, however, the annuities are presumed to be Calvin's sole management community property under section 3.104(a) because they were held in Calvin's name only, and section 3.104(a)"trumps" section 3.102. Jean v. Tyson–Jean , 118 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).Stacy next argues that the Government knew of Calvin's lack of authority from the joint claim and answer filed in the forfeiture proceeding that referred to the annuities as "community property" and stated Stacy's (and Calvin's) objection to forfeiture.