Horlock v. Horlock - 533 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975)

Rule:

In considering the wife's claim of a constructive fraud against her share of the community property the courts consider three primary factors. Those factors are the size of the gift in relation to the total size of the community estate, the adequacy of the estate remaining to support the wife in spite of the gift, and the relationship of the donor to the donee. 

Facts:

Dorothy Gray Horlock, appellant, and Roy M. Horlock, appellee, were married on November 22, 1966. Appellant had not been previously married while appellee was married to Margaret Boudreaux Horlock until she died. She bequeathed her entire estate to Roy M. Horlock. Three daughters were born to such marriage while one child, a son, was born to the parties. The parties separated and final decree granting the appellant a divorce was entered on January 6, 1975. Custody of the son was granted to appellant. Appellee was ordered to pay child support, his son's various medical expenses and private school tuition. Appellee was granted visitation rights with his son at specified times. The divorce decree ordered a division of the Horlocks' estate and established responsibility for the discharge of debts and liabilities. The appellant's attorney was awarded a judgment against appellee of $15,000 for legal services rendered on appellant's behalf. All costs were adjudged against the appellee. Appellant wife sought review of a decree from the Court of Domestic Relations No. 5 of Harris County (Texas), which awarded her a divorce and distributed the parties' property. Appellant contended that the property distribution was not fair and equitable, challenging the trial court's rulings regarding gifts made to appellee husband's daughters.

Issue:

Were the gifts made to appellee’s daughters constituted fraud thus reimbursable to the community estate?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In considering the wife's claim of a constructive fraud against her share of the community property the courts have considered three primary factors. Those factors are the size of the gift in relation to the total size of the community estate, the adequacy of the estate remaining to support the wife in spite of the gift, and the relationship of the donor to the donee. Appellee had three daughters by his prior marriage. At the time of the parties' separation the girls' ages were fourteen, seventeen and eighteen. The daughters inherited nothing from their deceased mother, whose will named appellee as her sole beneficiary of her substantial estate. Appellee’s daughters were the natural objects of his bounty. The total value of the gifts to the daughters was $131,517. Appellee at the time of the marriage owned properties having a net value of approximately $1,000,000, and that at the time of the dissolution of the marriage appellant and appellee owned properties having a net value of approximately $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. Throughout the marriage the value of the estate was in excess of $1,000,000. Assuming the lower value of $1,000,000, the appellee's gifts to his three daughters constituted no more than 13.1517% of the total estate. The remaining minimum figure of approximately $870,000 in community funds would be sufficient to provide for the needs of the wife. The foregoing facts and considerations sought by the appellee removed the gifts by the appellee to his daughters from the pale of a constructive fraud upon the wife's portion of the community estate.