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.
Stace Carol LeGrand-Brock v. Roy Richard Brock
Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-04-00251-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 12, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
A dispute arises from the dissolution of marriage between Stace Carol LeGrand-Brock and Roy Richard Brock regarding the division of their community estate. The trial court determined that cash payments received by Roy during the marriage were his separate property. Stace appeals this decision, raising seven issues, with her sixth issue focusing on the exclusion of her expert testimony about these cash payments' characterization. Her final issue questions whether the property division is "just and equitable" under the Family Code. The other five issues challenge the trial court's classification of the cash payments as separate property. The background reveals that prior to their marriage, Roy owned 740.5 shares in BTH Holdings, Inc., which was dissolved in 1999. Over the subsequent years, Roy received four substantial cash payments totaling approximately $6.98 million. The trial court ruled the payments were separate property without allowing Stace's expert testimony and did not clarify how many shares were surrendered for each payment. Relevant Texas law presumes that property acquired during marriage is community property unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Cash dividends from separately held stock are classified as community property. The character of property remains unchanged despite various transactions or forms, and tax treatment does not affect property classification. The appellate court concluded that Stace preserved her issue regarding the exclusion of evidence and determined that the trial court erred in excluding her expert testimony, leading to a reversal of the property division and a remand for further proceedings. Challenges to the exclusion of expert testimony are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. For expert testimony to be relevant, it must relate closely to the case facts and assist in resolving factual disputes. Stace’s expert provided three key opinions: (1) Roy’s stock was never sold; (2) BTH distributed substantial liquidation dividends from retained earnings during liquidation; and (3) the cash distributions to Roy are community property. Roy contends that his stock was exchanged for cash assets, which he claims should be considered his separate property, arguing that the expert testimony was irrelevant as it would not aid in determining the fact in issue. However, a factual dispute exists regarding whether the stock was exchanged for cash or if the cash payments constituted dividends. As a result, Stace’s expert testimony is deemed relevant for determining the nature of the cash payments. The trial court erred by not admitting this expert testimony, which likely led to an improper judgment on the equitable division of the community estate. Consequently, the judgment regarding the community estate division is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, while the judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Additionally, Roy received 740.5 shares of BTH Property Services, Inc. due to a spin-off, although this matter is not under appeal.