Billy George Williams v. Debra Lee (Williams) Clark--Appeal from 169th District Court of Bell County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2004 » Billy George Williams v. Debra Lee (Williams) Clark--Appeal from 169th District Court of Bell County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-03-00585-CV

Case Date: 05/27/2004

Plaintiff: LOAN THI HOANG NGO

Defendant: SON DUC NGO--Appeal from 156th District Court of Aransas County

Preview:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00585-CV

Billy George Williams, Appellant v. Debra Lee (Williams) Clark, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 197020-C, HONORABLE SUE BARTON LYKES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M EM O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Billy George Williams, appeals the division of property ordered in his divorce decree between him and his former wife, appellee Debra Lee (Williams) Clark. Williams asserts that the district court erred by not ruling on his motion for temporary injunction to preserve the community estate and by failing to award a just and right division of the community estate. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND Williams and Clark were married in 1996.1 In 1997, Williams was convicted of a felony and remains incarcerated. Clark filed for divorce in March 2003. Williams filed a motion

Because Williams and Clark were in a common law marriage, there is some dispute between the parties as to when they were legally married. It is not clear to the Court whether Williams appeals the district court's finding that the couple was married in 1996, but we will assume he does. The district court stated in its findings of fact that the couple was married in 1996. In an

1

for temporary injunction to preserve the community estate. Williams also filed a "motion to adjudicate" asking the district court to rule on his motion for temporary injunction. The district court never ruled on Williams's motions. At the final hearing on the divorce, Clark testified and Williams, in lieu of appearing in person, submitted an affidavit for the court's consideration. See In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Clark testified that Williams had not contributed economically to their household. She also testified that she owned a home as her separate property. Williams's affidavit attested that he did contribute to the household. He asserted that he earned $400 a week from his former job and that all of his earnings went to pay the mortgage for Clark's separate property. He also claimed that Clark received his disability benefits. Williams argued, in his response to the divorce petition, that the community estate was thus entitled to equitable reimbursement. The district court awarded Clark the house she owned as her separate property and did not award Williams any equitable reimbursement. Williams now appeals, asserting that the district court did not order a just and right division of marital assets. He also asserts that the district court erred by failing to rule on his motion for temporary injunction.

appeal from a bench trial, findings of fact are the equivalent of jury answers to special issues. Associated Tel. Directory Publishers, Inc. v. Five D's Publ'g Co., 849 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, no writ). The reviewing court cannot substitute its conclusions for those of the trial court if there is sufficient competent evidence of probative force to support the trial court's findings. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Tex. 1985). We hold that there is sufficient probative evidence, specifically Clark's testimony, that supports the district court's finding. 2

DISCUSSION Temporary injunction Under section 6.502 of the family code, a court may issue a temporary injunction for the preservation of property and the protection of the parties as deemed necessary and equitable during the pendency of a divorce. Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

Download 12842.pdf