Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Grossnickle v. Grossnickle
Citations: 865 S.W.2d 211; 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 2625; 1993 WL 376580Docket: 06-92-00099-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 28, 1993; Texas; State Appellate Court
Lee Ann Grossnickle appealed the trial court's property division decision in her divorce from Richard Dean Grossnickle, asserting that the court erred by denying her a jury trial. The couple, married in 1981, faced divorce proceedings initiated by Richard in November 1988. While issues of conservatorship and child support were addressed, the appeal focused on property characterization, valuation, and division. The court emphasized the constitutional right to a jury trial, underscoring its significance and the scrutiny applied to any restrictions on this right. According to the Texas Family Code, either party in a divorce case may demand a jury trial, and jury findings on property matters are binding on the trial court. Lee Ann timely filed her written jury demand, meeting the requirement of submitting it at least thirty days before the trial date set for November 20, 1991. The court found no evidence that granting a jury trial would harm the other party or disrupt court proceedings. Thus, the trial court's denial of Lee Ann's request was deemed erroneous. The court determined that the refusal to grant a jury trial could not be considered harmless since material factual issues regarding the estate's extent and value were present. As a result, the court affirmed the divorce judgment, including conservatorship and child support, but reversed the property division aspects and remanded those issues for trial.