Jean v. Tyson-Jean

35 Citing cases

  1. Neely v. Trippon (In re Neely)

    BANKRUPTCY No. 04-44898-H5-7 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 19, 2013)

    "[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)).

  2. In re Marriage of Delgado

    No. 13-23-00343-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 28, 2024)

    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).

  3. Soza v. Hill

    542 F.3d 1060 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 123 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that while the name “constructive fraud” does not appear in the statute, “[t]he TUFTA describes one species of ‘constructive fraud’ in stating that transfers made ‘without receiving a reasonably equivalent value’ are deemed in fraud of creditors”

    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."

  4. Mobile Equity Corp. v. Walmart Inc.

    2:21-cv-00126-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    , 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).

  5. In re Estate of Abraham

    583 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    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.

  6. In re Esate of Abraham

    No. 08-18-00089-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 21, 2019)

    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).

  7. Menchaca v. Menchaca

    NUMBER 13-12-00450-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2013)

    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.

  8. Dailey v. Dailey

    NO. 02-12-00097-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 10, 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that evidence at trial supported implied finding of fraud and provided a legal basis for the alleged disproportionate award to wife of the community estate

    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.

  9. Greco v. Greco

    No. 04-07-00748-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 29, 2008)   Cited 6 times

    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.

  10. United States v. Tracts 31A

    852 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    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.