Opinion
NO. 03-15-00545-CV
11-29-2016
Brian McMullen, Appellant v. Tina McMullen, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 234,417-B, HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court granted appellant Brian McMullen's petition for divorce from appellee Tina McMullen and divided the couple's property. In one issue, Brian appeals the trial court's final divorce decree, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make a just and right division of the community estate. We will affirm the trial court's decree.
For clarity, we will refer to the parties by their given names. --------
BACKGROUND
Brian filed for divorce in February 2009. After several trial settings were passed, the trial court held a final divorce hearing at which both Brian and Tina testified regarding their desired division of the couple's assets and liabilities. The trial court granted the divorce on grounds of insupportability at the hearing and took the property division under advisement. The trial court then signed a final decree of divorce that awarded Brian the residence owned by Brian and Tina, one-half of the community property portion of Tina's retirement benefits, a 2007 Nissan Titan motor vehicle, various pieces of furniture including a Broyhill bedroom set that included a dresser, mirror, nightstand, and armoire, two firearms, some yard equipment, a king bed with mattress and boxspring, two couches, a bar table and chairs, a pool table and accessories, and various other pieces of household furniture and personal possessions. The trial court awarded Tina one-half of the community property interest in Brian's retirement benefits, a 1997 Dodge Ram Van B1500, a 2008 Mazda 3 motor vehicle, a bedroom set with a queen bed, a dining table and chairs, a couch and entertainment center, and various other pieces of household furniture and personal possessions.
The trial court also divided the couple's liabilities, making Brian responsible for the balance due on a note secured by a deed of trust on the residence awarded to Brian, the balance due on the note secured by the 2007 Nissan Titan motor vehicle, and the outstanding balance on four credit cards totalling approximately $1,500. The trial court made Tina responsible for the balance due on a note secured by the 2008 Mazda 3 motor vehicle, and the debt owed under a $2,281.00 judgment against her. The decree also ordered that Tina pay Brian $250.00 "for the purpose of a just and right division of property made in [the] decree."
On appeal, Brian complains of the trial court's award of the bedroom set with the queen bed, what he refers to as "the black bedroom set," to Tina. In Brian's view, the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the black bedroom set to Tina instead of to him.
DISCUSSION
In a decree of divorce, the trial 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 § 7.001. A just and right division of the couple's community property need not be an equal split. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981). Rather, the court may consider numerous factors in deciding how to divide the couple's community property, including such things as relative ages, education levels, job prospects, and sizes of separate property estates. Id. "The trial court has wide discretion in dividing the estate of the parties and that division should be corrected on appeal only when an abuse of discretion has been shown." Id. A trial court abuses its discretion if it "act[s] without reference to any guiding rules or principles, such that its ruling [is] arbitrary or unreasonable." American Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). A court has no discretion, however, in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). "Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion." Id. If we find reversible error in any part of the trial court's property division that materially affects its just and right division of the community estate, we must remand for a new division of the entire community estate. Jacobs v. Jacobs, 687 S.W.2d 731, 732-33 (Tex. 1985).
On appeal, Brian asserts that the trial court failed to make a just and right division of the community estate because it awarded the black bedroom set to Tina. As described above, the trial court awarded some of the couple's furniture to Brian and some to Tina. According to Brian, awarding the black bedroom set to Tina was an abuse of discretion because it was the only bedroom set Brian had. Brian does not demonstrate how the trial court's decision to award the black bedroom set, which both parties agreed had been purchased for the couple's daughter, to Tina was outside the wide discretion the trial court may exercise in dividing the community estate. The record reflects that Brian and Tina were each awarded various pieces of furniture and that Brian remained in possession of a king-sized bed. Brian's complaint that the daughter's furniture should not have been awarded to Tina because the daughter, who was living with Tina, had been using a different furniture set after she "messed up" the black bedroom set does not establish that the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles such that its division was arbitrary or unreasonable. Furthermore, the trial court ordered Tina to pay Brian $250.00 in order to accomplish a just and right division of the couple's property. This monetary award to Brian, which is approximately equal to the value placed on the black bedroom set in the property inventory Tina submitted to the court, would appear to cure any perceived inequity in awarding the black bedroom set to Tina instead of to him. We overrule Brian's sole appellate issue.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Brian's sole appellate issue, we affirm the trial court's decree dividing the couple's community-property estate.
/s/_________
Scott K. Field, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Affirmed Filed: November 29, 2016