FILED IN
1ST COURT OFAPPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
In The
OCT 0 5 2015
Court of Appeals CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
For The CLERK
First District of Texas
NO. 01-015-00063-CV
Patrick Cox, Appellants)
V.
Cara Cox, Appellee(s)
On Appeal from the 245th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2013-21966
APPELLANT'S ORIGINAL BRIEF
Patrick Cox
Pro Se Appellant
247 Hedwig Rd
832-495-9416
855-280-1504
divorGe_cara@yahoo.com
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 1 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete list of the names of all parties to the trial
court's final decree and their trial and appellate counsel.
Appellant/Respondent: Patrick Cox
Appellate Counsel for Patrick Cox: Pro Se
Trial Counsel for Patrick Cox- Michael Delaney
929 Preston, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77002
PH: 713-222-2767
Appellee/Petitioner: Cara Cox
Appellate Counsel for Cara Cox: Allan Daughtry
One Houston Center
1221 McKinneySt.
Suite 4100
Houston, Texas 77010
Office: (713) 554-9097
Trial Counsel for Cara Cox: Bobby K. Newman
3355 W. Alabama, Ste 444
Houston, Texas 77098
PH: 713-966-4444
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 2 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT REGARDING ORALARGUMENT 5
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
OPENING STATEMENT 10
MARITAL HISTORY 10
SUMMARY OF BRIEF 12
PRE TRIAL AND TRIAL MOTION ERRORS 16
OWELTY OF PARTITION DEED/LIEN 23
APPELLANT DUE AN OWELTY OF
PARTITION AS TO APPELLEE'S
SEPARATE PROPERTY 34
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 34
PRAYER 36
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 38
APPENDIX 39
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 3 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 50(c) 24
ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 15 24
ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 50(a)(3) 32
CASES
Wackenhut Corporation v. Jesse James
Gutierrez (Texas Supreme Court
Feb 6, 2015, Docket No 12-0136) 18
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 23
140 (Tex. 1977)
Leighton v. Leighton, 921 S.W.2d 365, 368 23
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996,
no writ
Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140 23
(Tex. App. 2000)
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Texas Rules of Evidence 21
Texas Rules of Evidence, Article X,
Rule 1007 22
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 4 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Both parties are willing to present oral argument in this case if the
Court believes it will derive substantial benefit from the presentation of oral
argument in this case.
Appellant has no objection to proceeding without oral arguments
should the Court determine it is not likely to derive substantial benefit from
the presentation of oral argument.
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 5 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
The Trial Court made both procedural errors and errors in its
evaluation of the evidence resulting in errors in the decisions rendered in
this case.
Issue 1: The Trial Court made errors in trial motion rulings tied to pretrial
prejudices resulting in bias in its treatment of the Appellant.
Issue 2: The Trial Court improperly overruled admission of Appellant's
revised inventory.
Issue 3: The Trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence
admitted in the case, and due to this error, the amount awarded
in settlement of the community estate's potential claim against
the separate property homestead of the Appellant was in
excess of any reasonable evaluation of the evidence resulting
in an award of money that is not supported by the evidence in
the case and exceeds the amount of the community estate's
rightful claim against the Appellant's separate property
homestead. The Trial Court then awarded an owelty of partition
deed/lien to Appellee that ignores the evidence admitted in the
case by the Trial Court. This resulted in an owelty of partition of
the Appellant's separate property homestead in violation of the
Texas Constitution.
Issue 4: These errors resulted in a violation of the Appellant's rights
under the Texas Constitution.
Issue 5: The Trial Court failed to award the Appellant an owelty of
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 6 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
partition in the Appellee's separate property investment real
property deriving from the community estate's claim to the
earnings of the property during the marriage.
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 7 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant acting pro se comes before this Honorable Court and
submits this Appellant's Original Brief. The 245th District Court is the Trial
Court in this matter.
The Trial Court made both procedural errors and errors in its
evaluation of the evidence resulting in errors in the decisions rendered in
this case.
Appellant asks this Court to correct those errors in the case rather
than remand the case for retrial since the error is easily corrected based on
the evidence admitted in the case.
The Appellant is seeking, as relief from the Trial Court's actions, the
elimination of the owelty of partition deed/lien awarded to Appellee and the
reduction of the money amount to zero from $135,000.
The also Trial Court ignored evidence that was clear in showing a
community estate claim against the Appellee's separate property and as a
result failed to award the Appellant an owelty of partition in the Appellee's
separate property investment real property deriving from the community
estate's claim to the earnings of the property during the marriage.
Absent a correction of the error, Appellant asks that the case be
remanded for re-trial with appropriate instruction to the Trial Court.
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 8 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This is an appeal by Patrick Cox ("Cox"), a respondent in a civil case.
The 245th District Court had jurisdiction of the case on the merits.
Notice of appeal was timely filed on January13, 2015 in accordance
with Rule 25.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Th First Circuit Court of Appeals of Texas has jurisdiction pursuant to
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.1(b).
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 9 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
OPENING STATEMENT
Appellant acting pro se comes before this Honorable Court and
submits this Appellant's Original Brief.
The 245th District Court is the Trial Court in this matter. The Appellant
will demonstrate that the Trial Court made both procedural errors and
errors in its evaluation of the evidence resulting in errors in the decisions
rendered in this case. Based on the trial record and for the reasons
described in this brief, this Court has ample reason to reverse and fix the
decision of the Trial Court, Appellant asks this Court to correct those errors
in the case rather than remand the case for retrial since the error is easily
corrected based on the evidence admitted in the case.
MARITAL HISTORY
The parties were married on July 10, 2010 and separated on
February 11, 2013. After reconciliation was not possible, Appellee filed for
divorce in March 2013 and served Appellant in April 2013. Appellant
answered and agreed that the parties suffered irreconcilable differences
and should be legally divorced. The 245th District Court was the Trial Court
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 10 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
and heard the case on September 4, 2014 and rendered its Final Decree of
Divorce on December 23, 2014. The appeal to this Court concerns the
property distribution awarded to the Appellee by the Trial Court.
Appellant earned a large income prior to marriage but due to a
reversal of fortunes at Appellant's business, Appellant did not earn a
sufficient income during the term of the marriage to support the family
formed from the marriage. The blended family consisted of Appellee and
Appellee's son from prior marriage and Appellant's adopted son lived in the
Appellant's separate property homestead during the entire term of the
marriage until the parties separated. Appellee did not work during the term
of the marriage. Appellee had her separate property residence and less
than $5,000 combined in retirement and less than $1,000 in non-retirement
accounts at the time of the marriage so contributed no money to the
household during the marriage. (See Exhibit CC-2.1 and CC-3.) Because of
Appellant's insufficient income and Appellee's nonexistent income during
the marriage, Appellant withdrew funds from Appellant's separate property
accounts to pay Appellant's mortgage and provide for household needs that
the community property income was unable to provide. (See Exhibit CC-2.1
and CC-2.2 and Reporter's Record page 127, lines 10 to 13.)
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 11 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
SUMMARY OF APPELLANT'S APPEAL BRIEF
In summary, the Appellant's brief consists of two parts. First, the Trial
Court erred in its pre-trial and trial day motion decisions and actions leading
to prejudicial behavior by the Trial Court against the Appellant and failure to
admit evidence that should have been admitted. Second the Trial Court
erred in its evaluation and application of the evidence admitted in the case
resulting in an award to the Appellee far in excess of Appellee's share of
any community property claim.
If the Trial Court had not made the pre-trial and trial day motion errors
resulting in this prejudicial behavior and evidence exclusion, the Appellant's
trial counsel would have been permitted to both introduce significant
evidence in the case and to challenge the veracity and integrity of the
Appellee's inventory and proposed property settlement. These challenges
and examinations of the Appellee's information by Appellant's trial counsel
would likely have resulted in a completely different outcome in the Trial
Court's decision. If Appellee were to argue that it would have had no impact
then Appellee must explain why Appellee objected to the information since
a rational person does not argue to exclude evidence that is helpful to his
or her case. Appellant acknowledges that this appeal requires the
presentation of sufficient information from the Court Reporter's Record and
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 12 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
Clerk's Record to support the claims made. That information is in the
record.
As this Court reviews the contents of this brief, Appellant believes it
will be clear that sufficient information was presented to the Trial Court that
had it given reasonable consideration and attention to such information, it
had sufficient information available to it to admit the rejected inventory and
proposed settlement provided by the Appellant and no owelty of partition
deed or lien would have been awarded to Appellee for the amount awarded
by the Trial Court.
Second and certainly not least, the Trial Court erred in its application
of Texas Law and the Texas Constitution as concerns the money awarded
and the security of it by the owelty of partition deed. These errors, when
corrected, will reduce to zero the Appellee's monetary award and eliminate
the need for an owelty of partition deed that was granted in error by the
Trial Court to the Appellee in the amount of the monetary award.
After trial on September 4, 2014, the Trial Court rendered its decision
on December 23, 2014 awarding money ($135,000.00) to the Appellee in
satisfaction of Appellee's claims against the community estate. The Trial
Court ordered that the money award was to be secured by an owelty of
partition lien/deed. Additionally, the Trial Court confirmed the separate
property nature of Appellee's and Appellant's separate property. All
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 13 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
separate property consisted of assets held by each party before marriage.
Neither party received any property during the marriage that would be
classified as separate property. The parties did not acquire any property
during the marriage the constituted community property.
The Trial Court failed to award Appellant an owelty of partition in the
separate real estate investment property of Appellee after reviewing the
evidence. The evidence admitted clearly supports this award and this court
should correct the error of the Trial Court.
The Appellant's use of separate property account funds to pay the
mortgage resulted in the creation of no community property estate as
concerns the Appellant's separate property homestead (acquired prior to
marriage and confirmed by the Trial Court as Appellant's separate
property). Since the Trial Court awarded $135,000 that was to be secured
by an owelty of partition deed/lien and since the Trial Court stated its
familiarity with the requirements of the homestead protection afforded
Texas residents and familiarity with the law concerning the owelty of
partition deed/lien, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence must
support this money award from the community property interest in the
Appellant's separate property homestead or the money award must be
reduced to the amount that can be supported by the evidence.
We do not know the Trial Court's findings of fact and conclusions of
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 14 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
law due to an error by the trial attorney for the Appellant who failed to timely
request this information from the Trial Court. However, we do know the
laws and the constitution of the State of Texas. We also do have the Trial
Court's own declarations of competence and specialized knowledge in the
matter to rely that this matter was certainly considered in the process. If the
Trial Court was fully aware of the law and constitutional limitations in this
area, any error in the amount awarded must necessarily be an error in
evaluation of the evidence. As the evidence was quite substantial and
technical and as the Trial Court did not have the assistance of testimony of
tax accountant's representing the Appellee and as we do have the
testimony of the Appellant who is an acknowledged expert in income tax
and financial matters as testified and not disputed by Appellee, it is not
unreasonable to believe that the Trial Court did the best it could to evaluate
the evidence and render its decision even if that decision was in error.
While the Appellant acknowledges that the Trial Court does and
should have wide discretion in its findings in family law matters, that
discretion does not extend to ignoring the laws, the evidence, or the
constitution of the State of Texas in reaching its decisions. In this case, the
Trial Court did fail to properly interpret evidence and did make errors in its
decisions and in its application of Texas Law and the Texas Constitution
which should be corrected by this Court so that the laws of Texas remain
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 15 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
reliable and predictable to all parties in the State of Texas. Failure to
address the errors made could very well result in significant disruption of
the business and family law environment in the State of Texas.
Due to the error in the money amount awarded to Appellee as an
owelty of partition deed/lien, Appellant appealed the decision of the Trial
Court and is specifically seeking revision of the amount of the monetary
award based on the evidence admitted at trial. Appellant believes the most
expedient method of resolving this error is a correction in the amount
awarded to Appellee at trial to an amount supported by the evidence
admitted in the case.
PRE TRIAL & TRIAL MOTION ERRORS
Two pre-trial events led the Trial Court to reject the modified inventory
and proposed property distribution submitted by the Appellant.
The first error occurred during the pre-trial phases of this case. The
errors led to a prejudicial environment towards the Appellant. This error
evolved from a dispute as to the completeness of the responses to
discovery provided to the Appellee by the Appellant. Appellant was late in
supplying the discovery responses to Appellee. As a result, Appellee filed a
motion to compel the responses and sought sanctions. Before the date of
the motion hearing, Appellant was able to complete and submit to Appellee
NO 01-015-00063-CV Page 16 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
a complete response to the discovery. Appellant then contacted Appellee's
counsel to confirm the hearing would be passed. Appellee's counsel did not
respond.
The hearing was held as scheduled and Appellant was never advised
that the hearing was going forward. Although this may be considered
unprofessional on the part of Appellee's counsel to not respond, the clerk
for the Trial Court had contact information for Appellant but failed to make
any effort to reach Appellant. Based on prior actions of the Trial Court, the
Appellant could have reasonably expected the courtesy of a phone call
from the Trial Court informing him that the hearing would proceed and he
would need to appear that morning. As cited in Appellant's motion for
reconsideration of sanctions filed with the Trial Court in January 2014 (see
argument points 8 and 9), the Trial Court routinely called the Appellee's trial
counsel when he failed to appear at the court for a pretrial motion hearing.
This is not required of the Trial Court clerk, but the Trial Court had
established by precedent of its prior actions that its standard mode of
operation was to contact or make several attempts to contact missing
parties of scheduled hearings to confirm their intent to attend or not attend
the scheduled hearing.
The Trial Court did not extend the same courtesy to the then pro se
Appellant as had previously been extended to Appellee's counsel and other
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 17 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
parties appearing before the Trial Court on dates when Appellant was
present for hearings. When Appellee's trial counsel failed to appear at a
scheduled hearing during earlier pretrial motions, the Trial Court made
several efforts to contact him to inform him that his presence was needed
to proceed with hearings. Appellant was advised that the Appellee's trial
counsel could not be reached and the matter would be re-scheduled.
Based on this history and based on Appellant's observation on other days
when hearings took place in this and other matters in the 245th District
Court, it was clearly routine for the Trial Court to instruct the court clerk to
attempt to contact missing counsel and to delay hearings until the party
was reached when someone was absent. The Appellant was acting
reasonably by expecting the same courtesy of the court clerk as was
extended to others. This courtesy was extended to Appellee's counsel, but
not to a pro se Appellant in the same case. The result was a decision in a
hearing that became a matter of disagreement in the case that was used by
Appellee's trial counsel at every opportunity to insert it into the arguments
and discussion in a clear attempt to prejudice the Trial Court against the
Appellant. It seems that it worked.
After this series of events, Appellee's trial counsel would routinely
evoke the reminder to the court of this finding in December 2013 and use
this to give the Trial Court reason to treat Appellant in a prejudicial manner.
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 18 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
At each hearing and request for extension, the subject of inadequate
discovery was worked into the discussion. Yet, at no point did the
Appellee's counsel, from receipt of the discovery in December 2013 to the
final motion to reset the trial date, file a motion to compel discovery citing
any specific deficiencies. It seems contrived to create a prejudicial
environment.
At Appellee's final request for a reset trial date, he was even given
the approval from the Trial Court judge to request on an emergency basis
any motion to compel specific discovery responses that the Appellee's
counsel determined was missing. Appellee's trial counsel was promised
emergency consideration by the Trial Court of any such motion. During the
succeeding sixty plus days, this Court might be surprised to learn that
Appellee's counsel did not file a single motion to compel discovery. After
month's of haranguing the Appellant over the "inadequate" discovery
response, Appellee's trial counsel found it necessary or even potentially
helpful to file not one single motion to compel on any item of discovery he
previously claimed was inadequate. It is reasonable to conclude that entire
production concerning the discovery was little more than a ruse to distract
the Trial Court and prejudice it against the Appellant. It clearly worked.
At the time of trial during motions, the Trial Court's previous ruling on
discovery was repeatedly evoked by Appellee's trial counsel at trial and the
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 19 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
Trial Court reminded of its finding as proof of continuing failure of Appellant
to comply with the Trial Court. This all was used to demonstrate support of
Appellee's trial counsel's motion to exclude the Appellant's revised
inventory from consideration by the Trial Court. (See Reporter's Record,
Page 15, line 14 to Page 17, line 19.)
Besides the prejudicial environment, the Trial Court erred in ignoring
the substantial information in Appellant's pre-trial motions including a
motion for "Partial Summary Judgment as to Respondent's Marital Estate"
where Appellant provided the Court and Appellee's trial counsel with an
inventory of his assets and their value. Appellant provided an inventory to
the Trial Court and to the Appellee among other pertinent information. In
Appellant's motions, he provided the Trial Court with substantial information
he deemed relevant and about which he wished to inform the Trial Court,
the Trial Court ignored this information in overruling Appellant's request to
admit his inventory and permit him to challenge the inventory of the
Appellee. The Texas Supreme Court ruled earlier in 2015 that pre-trial
motions need not be re-submitted to the Trial Court during trial in order to
preserve error and for a party to avail itself of having satisfied an obligation
to provide the court with information it requires in a timely manner (See
Wackenhut Corporation v. Jesse James Gutierrez, Feb 6, 2015, Docket No
12-0136).
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 20 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
To further compound the error, the Trial Court was given another
opportunity to redress this error. During testimony, the Trial Court observed
that the Appellee's inventory cited the Appellant's inventory as the source
for one of Appellee's inventory items. (See Reporter's Record, Page 133,
Line 5 to Line 15.)
The Trial Court observed that, if the Appellee received no inventory
information from Appellant, her trial counsel would not have referenced that
information in Appellee's inventory that the Trial Court admitted. The Trial
Court briefly pointed this out to Appellee's trial counsel and made a brief
perfunctory inquiry that was inadequate to determine the source of the
information and failed to take notice of the pre-trial motions that cited the
data used by Appellee.
To compound this error, Appellee's trial counsel responded that the
information came from another inventory source not prepared by Appellant
for purposes of this case. (See RR, Page 133, Line 10 to Line 13.) The Trial
Court accepted this but did not reverse the decision rejecting Appellant's
inventory. An innovatory prepared for another civil case in another court
cannot be deemed invalid under the Texas Rules of Evidence under any
rule or case law that the Appellant can find.
The Trial Court erred by failing to conduct reasonable due diligence at
any minimal level when presented with inconsistent information and make
NO 01 -015-00063-CV Page 21 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
reasonable inquiries as to the actual source of the information. Further
upon being advised that the Appellee was relying on another inventory type
of document in the case and was presenting excerpts from that evidence at
trial, the Trial Court failed to reverse itself or demand production of that
document in its entirety to determine if that document was an inventory and
met the requirements for Appellant to provide an inventory.
There were many options available to the Trial Court to resolve the
inconsistency between being told no inventory existed only later to discover
an inventory being referenced and information constituting a de-facto
inventory from a pre-trial motion being used by the Appellee. Appellant was
unable to afford representation in the early stages of this case due to his
financial position. Because of this, Appellant's own trial counsel was
engaged on the case only a couple of months before trial and could not
answer the Trial Court as to the potential source in the time allotted. Had
the Trial Court granted sufficient time to inquire, demanded production of
the document used by Appellee, or made its own inquiries into the matter, it
would have determined the source of the information and overruled the
Appellee's objection to admission of Appellant's inventory. The Trial Court is
permitted under Texas Rules of Evidence, Article X, Rule 1007 to "prove
the content of a writing, recording, or photograph by the testimony,
deposition, or written statement of the party against whom the evidence is
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 22 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
offered. The proponent need not account for the original."
In one case, the Trial Court took no action to correct the prejudicial
treatment it rendered. In the second event, the Trial Court did briefly and
perfunctorily but inadequately inquire into the inconsistencies in the
evidence it was presented by Appellee which lead to an error in decision on
admitting the evidence. These two errors led to Appellant not receiving fair
and just submission of evidence in this case for the Trial Court to consider
in rendering its decision and prejudiced handling of the case by the Trial
Court that is sufficiently egregious enough to warrant action by this Court.
OWELTY OF PARTITION DEED/LIEN
The Trial Court erred in its award of an owelty of partition and its
associated money award to Appellee in the decree dissolving the marriage
and partitioning the assets.
The decree grants to Appellee an owelty of partition deed/lien in the
amount of $135,000. The owelty of partition deed is granted against the
Appellant's separate property homestead. This amount was not supported
by the evidence admitted in the case and should be reduced to the amount
supported by the evidence by this Court.
The error made has the effect of mischaracterizing separate property
NO 01-015-00063-CV Page 23 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
as community property and thereby denying Appellant his separate
property. When a court mischaracterizes separate property in this way, the
error requires correction or reversal. (See Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554
S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.1977); Leighton v. Leighton, 921 S.W.2d 365, 368
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ; and Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d
140 (Tex. App. 2000)). If the award against the Appellant's separate
property homestead cannot be tied by the evidence to a valid claim
allowing for an owelty of partition, then the award and the owelty of partition
against Appellant's separate property homestead are invalid (Texas
Constitution, Article XVI Section 50(c)).
The real property against which the owelty of partition deed/lien was
granted to Appellee is Appellant's separate property and is his homestead.
Both its character as Appellant's separate property and its character as his
homestead were confirmed by the Trial Court. Appellant acquired the
homestead many years prior to meeting and marrying the Appellee. As the
admitted evidence at trial proved, at no time was the homestead mortgage
re-financed to add the Appellee and at no time was the title modified to
reflect any form of ownership by the Appellee based on the evidence
admitted at trial. The real property is Appellant's separate property
homestead and this was undisputed by the Appellee at trial. The Texas
Constitution under Article XVI, Section 15 requires a written agreement
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 24 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
between the parties in order to partition the Appellant's separate property.
In order to determine that the Appellee is entitled to an owelty of
partition deed/lien dollar amount, the Trial Court must determine the
following or the owelty of partition deed/lien is invalid. (Texas Constitution,
Article XVI Section 50(c))
1. The community estate has a potential reimbursement claim
against the Appellant's separate property homestead claim;
2. The community estate must have had sufficient earnings to pay
household expenses first and then provide funds to expend on the
Appellant's separate property homestead;
3. The community estate funds may have been expended on the
Appellant's separate property homestead in a manner that creates a valid
reimbursement claim to the community estate;
4. Since the Trial Court found neither party to have been at
greater fault in the dissolution of the marriage, the amount awarded to
Appellee must be fifty percent of the community estate's contribution to the
Appellant's separate property homestead, or as a corollary, the community
estate contribution must be twice the amount awarded to Appellee;
5. The Trial Court cannot award Appellee an owelty of partition
deed or lien against Appellant's separate property homestead for any
amount not directly from the community estate's claim against the
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 25 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
Appellant's separate property homestead since any award that derives
from any claim other than a community reimbursement claim against
Appellant's separate property homestead is invalid (Tex Const, Art XVI Sec
50(c) and Sec 50(a)(3)).
At any step in this logical process where the answer to the question is
negative or the information fails to support the decision of the Trial Court,
the Trial Court should have decided that no owelty of partition is due or can
be made so no money award is due the Appellee from the Appellant's
separate property homestead. If the Trial Court did or should have reached
a stop at any step based on the court's record and the evidence admitted
and failed to do so, the Trial Court made reversible error. This Court should
address and correct that error if it can be shown that the Trial Court erred.
In analysis of step 1 above, the Trial Court must determine in its
analysis of the evidence admitted that there is the potential for the
community estate to have a reimbursement claim against the Appellant's
separate property homestead before proceeding the step 2. Appellee's
inventory and proposed property settlement claimed reimbursement from
the community estate for payments of mortgage interest, mortgage loan
principal, and property taxes such that a potential claim existed and
required the Trial Court to determine what amount, if any, that could be
assigned to an owelty of partition deed or lien against the Appellant's
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 26 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
separate property homestead.
In analysis of step 2 above, the Trial Court admitted into evidence the
Appellee's inventory and proposed property settlement and improperly
denied admission of the Appellant's inventory and proposed property
settlement. The Trial Court also admitted personal income tax returns and
associated other documents.
In reviewing the evidence, the testimony, tax return and other
financial data admitted by the Trial Court at the request of Appellee
demonstrates clearly that the community estate had earnings of $151,621
during the term of the marriage from 2011 and 2012 tax years (See Exhibit
CC-2.1 and CC-2.2 and Reporter's Record page 127, lines 10 to 13.) This
amount was insufficient to pay the income taxes on the earnings, charitable
donations and other costs of operating the household that are
demonstrated on the tax return as a minimum of $81,293 for charitable
donations for 2011 (See Exhibit CC-2.2, Schedule A, line 16) and the
amount of $12,400 per month (Reporter's Record lines 7 to 21) in normal
living expenses for food, clothing, utilities and other normal and necessary
expenses of the family. This calculation (monthly living expense of $12,200
per month times 24 months equals $297,600 plus the joint charitable
donations of $81,293 for a total of $378,893 versus earnings of $151,621
and a prorata sum for 2012 for 6 of the 52 weeks (January to mid February
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 27 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
per RR Pg 127, lines 10 to 13) of $17,495 equals total income of $169,116
leaving a deficit of community expenses of $209,777 for 2011 and 2012)
shows that there were no community funds available for payment of the
mortgage payment or property taxes of the Appellant's separate property
homestead when community expenses are first removed from community
earnings before any remainder can be claimed by Appellee as advanced
from the community estate to the Appellant for separate property uses.
In analysis of step 3 above, the Trial Court must determine that
community estate funds have been expended on the Appellant's separate
property homestead in a manner that creates a valid reimbursement claim
to the community estate
A required part of this calculation, if step 2 had produced a
community estate claim, requires first determining the amount of the
principal reduction paid on the Appellant's mortgage from community
property funds. Costs such as interest, maintenance, and property taxes
are a community benefit used up by the community and not part of the
community estate's claim as correctly determined by the Trial Court
Since the calculation in item 2 demonstrates that no community funds
could have been used to benefit Appellant's separate property homestead,
the Trial Court should stop here. No amount is due Appellee and owelty of
partition deed/lien cannot be used and is not needed since Appellee is not
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 28 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
due an owelty of partition of the Appellant's separate property homestead.
The entire amount should be found to be invalid and the owelty of partition
deed/lien found to be invalid in accordance with the Texas Constitution if
the owelty of partition does not derive from an allowed obligation as
enumerated in the Texas Constitution.
In analysis of step 4 above, the Trial Court must determine the
amount of the community estate claim due to expenditure of community
estate funds to the benefit of the Appellant's separate property homestead.
That claim of the community estate is then properly awarded the
heightened security of the owelty of partition. The Trial Court should not
have reached this step since the Trial Court should have determined in step
2 that no community earnings could have been used by Appellant in
support of his community property homestead. However, the Trial Court did
award an owelty of partition to Appellee. To offer a complete analysis of the
error by the Trial Court, we should go forward with determining the amount
of the total of the community estate's claim. However, since we do not have
the Trial Court's findings of fact, we have to back into the number the Trial
Court would have had to find in the admitted evidence as the full amount of
the community estate's claim against the Appellant's separate property
homestead. That logical process might be best described as follows:
(a) Since the Final Decree of Divorce awarded each party fifty
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 29 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
percent of the community estate;
(b) and since only the portion of the community estate's claim
against the separate property homestead of Appellant can be considered
valid as to the owelty of partition of Appellant's separate property
homestead awarded to Appellee by the owelty of partition (Tex Const Art
XVI, Sec 50(a)(3));
(d) then we can conclude that the Trial Court must have determined
that the community estate claim was $270,000 or twice the owelty of
partition amount awarded to Appellee of $135,000.
In other words, the wide latitude afforded the Trial Court in balancing
the community property does not extend to crossing the Texas
Constitution's boundary between homestead and non-homestead debt or
claim satisfaction. The partitioned amount of the homestead must be a part
of the whole of the homestead or must be derived from one of the allowed
exceptions in the Texas Constitution in order to become a partitioned award
secured by an owelty of partition deed or lien. If this is not supported by he
evidence, the owelty of partition is not valid. If the owelty of partition is not
valid, the amount of the award represents an error in evaluation of the
evidence and must be reduced to the correct amount, if any, that is
supported by the evidence.
Therefore, the Trial Court must have determined based on the
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 30 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
evidence that the full $270,000 was spent from community estate funds for
reduction in mortgage principal or other permitted homestead expenditures
on Appellant's separate property homestead in order to award fifty percent
or $135,000 to Appellee. If the evidence does not support this award
because there were insufficient community earnings to allow for this
amount, the Court is obligated to render justice and reduce the money
award to the amount that can be identified as fifty percent of the community
estate funds used for Appellant's separate property homestead.
In reviewing the evidence as discussed in items 2 and 3 above, the
tax return and other financial data admitted by the Trial Court at the request
of Appellee demonstrates clearly that the community estate had earnings of
far less than $270,000 and that, after household expenses, far less than
$270,000 was available to be used by the Appellant for mortgage principal
reduction. The actual mortgage principal reduction was $0 from community
estate funds based on the analysis of items 2 and 3 above.
When reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the other costs of the
household for property taxes, food, clothing, gifts to the Appellee and other
items consumed all of the community earnings. This leaves no community
income to expend on the Appellant's separate property homestead. If no
community earnings were expended to the benefit of Appellant's separate
property homestead, the community estate has no claim to the Appellant's
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 31 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
separate property homestead that can be subject to an owelty of partition.
The amount awarded by the Trial Court is $135,000 (one hundred
thirty-five thousand dollars). The correct amount that should have been
awarded based on the evidence presented is $0.
In analysis of step 5 above, the Trial Court is only permitted to use
the owelty of partition lien/deed against the Appellant's separate property
homestead when dividing community estate property of a family homestead
as provided in the Texas Constitution (Texas Constitution, Article XVI,
Section 50(a)(3)). The Texas Constitution further provides in Article XVI
Section 50(c) that "no mortgage, trust deed, or other lien on the homestead
shall ever be valid unless it secures a debt described by this section,
whether such mortgage, trust deed, or other lien, shall have been created
by the owner alone, or together with his or her spouse, in case the owner is
married".
The Texas Constitution is very clear that no deed or lien created on
separate property homestead of the Appellant by the Trial Court can be
valid if it derives from any source other than the division of the community
estate's claims directly against the Appellant's separate property
homestead or of the homestead of the Appellee and Appellant or of a
source as described in the other sub parts of Section 50(a) of the Texas
Constitution. The Trial Court judge was very clear that he understood that
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 32 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
the real property's character was that of Appellant's separate property
homestead and no evidence was admitted purporting to claim that the
homestead was a jointly owned homestead. The Trial Court correctly
confirmed the separate property ownership of the Appellant on the property.
The limitations on the use of the owelty of partition in the Texas Constitution
are very clear. It is only reasonable to conclude that the Trial Court must
have believed that any amount it awarded Appellee in this matter that is
secured by the owelty of partition deed/lien originated in the community
property claim against the separate property homestead of the Appellant.
The corollary to this logical process is that any amount not supported
by the trial evidence is by default an error of the Trial Court's evaluation of
the evidence and should be corrected by this Court.
Since the evidence admitted does not support the required
conclusions and since the Texas Constitution is clear as to when valid
claims develop and where the owelty of partition can be used and when the
owelty of partition becomes invalid and since the Trial Court clearly
understood the requirements of the law and the Texas Constitution, this
Court should correct the error of the Trial Court, and in accordance with the
Texas Constitution, invalidate the amount of owelty of partition and the
owelty of partition deed/lien.
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 33 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
Appellant Due an Amount of Owelty of Partition as to the
Appellee's Separate Property
The Trial Court failed to award the Appellant an owelty of partition in
the Appellee's separate property which consisted of an investment in real
property deriving from the community estate's claim to the earnings of the
property during the marriage.
The income tax return discussed above for 2011 (Exhibit CC-2.2)
provides on Schedule E the amounts of rent collected and the offsetting
deductions as well as the benefit to Appellee's separate property of the use
of community estate funds. Rent income of $19,425. Rental Expenses of
$4,838. Net income of $14,587. The net income produced by the property
was used to provide a reduction in the obligations of Appellee on her
separate property for mortgage interest of $14,661 and property taxes of
$5,814 or a total benefit from community earnings in 2011 of $20,475. Per
Exhibit CC-2.1, the tax year 2012 produced a benefit form the community
estate to the Appellee of $19,130. The total for 2011 and 2012 tax years
was $39,605. Fifty percent of that amount is $19,802.50
Appellant asks that the Court correct this error and award Appellant
an owelty of partition for the amount of $19,802.50 due Appellant.
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 34 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
Appellant asks that this Court revise the amount of the cash awarded
and secured by an owelty of partition deed/lien by the Trial Court to the
amount properly due in accordance with the calculation determined by the
proper application of the law, the consideration of the evidence admitted,
and the Constitution of the State of Texas as presented in the Appellant's
brief above. The Appellee's award should be $0 owelty of partition of
Appellant's separate property homestead and the owelty of partition deed/
lien in favor of Appellee on Appellant's separate property homestead
invalidated. Finally, the Court should award Appellant an owelty of partition
deed/lien in Appellee's separate property investment real estate.
If this Court should decide to reverse and remand for reconsideration
of the amount based on this evidence or based on the error demonstrated
In the Trial Court's actions, the Appellant asks that the Court grant such
relief as it deems fair and just including that the Trial Court be ordered to
reconsider and admit the evidence (specifically the Appellant's inventory
and proposed division of property) that was denied admission so that the
Appellant may seek to properly claim the funds due him from Appellee
under the laws of the State of Texas.
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 35 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
PRAYER
Appellant prays that this Court will order the relief sought by Appellant
in this appeal of the decision of the 245th District Court of Texas.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Patrick Cox
Pro Se Appellant
Mailing address: 247 Hedwiq Rd
Telephone number: 832-495-9416
Fax number:, 855-280-1504
e-mail address: divorce_cara@.vahoo.com
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 36 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT
Appellant acting pro se submits this Appellant's Original Brief and
certifies as required by Section 9.4(i)(3) of the TRAP that the brief complies
with the word count limitations of Section 9.4(i)(2) based on the reported
word count of the Appellant's word processing software used to prepare
this brief.
Patrick Cox
Pro Se Appellant
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 37 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true copy of the above was served on the following
attorney of record by email in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure on October 5, 2015.
email to:
Alan Daughtry by email: alan@alandauahtrvlaw.com
Attorney for Appellee
Patrick Cox
Pro Se Appellant
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 38 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
NO. 01-015-00063-CV Page 39 of 39 Cause: P Cox vs C Cox
JLpO
CAUSE NO. 2013-21966
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
tiwyt
CARA COX § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AND §
PATRICK COX § 245th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE 17 T ¥ W~H
On IJl
Y/t" ,2014 the Court heard this case.
District Clerk
npn j 3 Jfltt
Time; Q,
/. Appearances Ham« county. Twtae ^
By.
Petitioner, CARA COX, appeared in person and through attorney of record/Sobby K.
Newman, and announced ready for trial. yg sam
Respondent, PATRICK COX, appeared in person and through attorney of record,
Michael Delaney, and announced ready for trial.
2 Record
The record of testimony was duly reported by the official court reporter for the 245th
Judicial District Court ofHarris County, Texas. *p flAnHa I
g 3. 100% of the Frost Bank, checking accountno. xxxl003, held in the
2 name of CARA COX;
L.
J*
| 4. 100% of the Frost Bank, savings account no. xxx7777t held in the
z name of CARA COX;
c
a
E
3
Final Decree of Divorce
•a Page 2 of 16
a>
U
W-4. The following retirement accounts, money market accounts, brokerage
accounts, stocks, bonds, and securities, together with all dividends, splits,
and other rights and privileges in connection with them:
1. 100% of the Frost Bank Rollover IRA, account no. xxx3605, held
in the name of CARA COX;
W-5. All policies of life insurance (including cash values) insuring the life of
CARA COX, including but not limited to the following:
1. 100% of the Guardian Group Term Life and AD&D Policies,
insuring the life of CARA COX including the $30,000.00 policy
and the $150,000.00 policy.
W-6. The 2008 Toyota Highlander motor vehicle, vehicle identification number
JTEDS41A582024848, together with all prepaid insurance, keys, and title
documents, currently in the possession of CARA COX,
W-7. All interest in the Houstonian Membership held in the name of
PATRICK COX.
W-8. The sum of $135,000.00 payable by PATRICK COX to CARA COX,
pursuant to the additional provisions regarding such monies set out herein
below.
73 Assets Awarded to PATRICK COX
IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that PATRICK COX shall be and is hereby
awarded thefollowing as his sole and separate property, and CARA COX is divested of all right,
title, interest, and claim in and to that property:
H-l. All household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, art objects,
\©
collectibles, appliances, and equipment in the possession of PATRICK
COX or subject to his sole control;
» H-2. All clothing, personal belongings, and other personal effects in the
£ possession of PATRICK COX or subject to his sole control;
H-3. The funds on deposit, together with accrued but unpaid interest, in the
fN
following banks, savings institutions, or other financial institutions:
jj 1. 100% of the Prosperity Bank, account no. xxx206I, held in the
| name of PATRICK COX;
2
s
Final Decree ofDivorce
•g Page 3of16
u
V
2. 100% of the Allegiance Bank, account no. xxx5693, held in the
name of PATRICK COX;
3. 100% of the Bank of America, account no. , held in
the name of PATRICK COX;
4. 100% of the Greater Texas Federal Credit Union, account no.
, held in the name of PATRICK COX;
5. 100% of the IBC Bank, checking account no. xxx4775, held in the
name of PATRICK COX;
H-4. The cash held by PATRICK COX's family members (brother and/or
mother) for his benefit, in the amount of $100,000.00, if and to the extent
such cash exists;
H-5. The following individual retirement accounts, money market accounts,
brokerage accounts, investment accounts, stocks, bonds, and securities,
together with all dividends, splits, and other rights and privileges in
connection with them:
1. 100% of the JD Ameritrade Account, account no. xxx0378, held in
the name of PATRICK COX;
2. 100% ofthe Janus Account, account no. xxxl 864, held in the name
of PATRICK COX;
3. 100% of the TD Ameritrade Account, account no. xxx0855, held in
the name of PATRICK COX;
4. 100% of the Janus IRA Account, account no. XXX1865, held in the
name of PATRICK COX; and
5. 100% of the Sterling Trust Rollover IRA Account, account no.
*
xxx9285, held in the name of PATRICK COX.
£ H-6. All sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or
otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and
(N
any other rights related to the following profit-sharing plans, retirement
2
C]
plans, Keogh plans, pension plans, employee stock option plans, 401 (k)
plans, employee savings plans, or disability plans:
I
1. 100% ofthe Paychex 401(k) Account, account no. xxx2914, held in
the name of PATRICK COX.
B
4)
e
Final Decree of Divorce
Tj Page 4of 16
c
U
H-7. All policies of life insurance (including cash values) insuring the life of
PATRICK COX.
H-8. The 2011 Ford Expedition motor vehicle, vehicle identification number
1FMJK1J56BEF34684, together with all prepaid insurance, keys, and title
documents, currently in the possession of PATRICK COX
H-9. The 2007 Ford Mustang motor vehicle, vehicle identification number
12VHT82H975277350, together withall prepaid insurance, keys, andtitle
documents, currently in the possession of PATRICK COX.
H-10. All interest in the business known as "Vpizza Restaurant", held in the
name of CARA COX, including but not limited to all furniture, fixtures,
machinery, equipment, inventory, cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and
supplies; all personal property used in connection with the operation of the
business; and all rightsand privileges, past,present,or future, arisingout of
or in connection with the operation of the business, including the following
specific accounts and property:
1. 100% of the Frost Bank, account no. xxx5066, held in the name of
Vpizza Restaurant, which accountis currently frozen;
H-ll. All interest in the business known as "CCLHR Enterprises, LLC", held
in the name of CARA COX, including but not limited to all furniture,
fixtures, machinery, equipment, inventory, cash, receivables, accounts,
goods, and supplies; all personal property used in connection with the
operation of the business; and all rights and privileges, past, present, or
future, arising out of or in connection with the operation of the business,
includingthe following specific accounts and property:
1. 100% of the Frost Bank, account no. xxx4180, held in the name of
CCLHR Enterprises, LLC, which account is currently frozen;
^ H-12. Any and all interest in the business known as "Osborne Company",
S should any such ownership interestexist in either of the parties, including
but not limited to all furniture, fixtures, machinery, equipment, inventory,
3 cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and supplies; all personal property used
S in connection with the operation of the business; and all rights and
3 privileges, past, present, or future, arising out ofor in connection with the
£ operation of the business.
E
3
z
g
E
3
8 Final Decree of Di vorce
Q
-g Page 5of 16
3
H-13. Any and all interest in the business known as "Gozetti's Restaurant",
should any such ownership interest exist in either of the parties, including
but not limited to all furniture, fixtures, machinery, equipment, inventory,
cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and supplies; all personal property used
in connection with the operation of the business; and all rights and
privileges, past, present, or future, arising out of or in connection with the
operation of the business.
7.4 Debts and Liabilities to CARA COX
IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that CARA COX shall pay, as a part ofthe division
of the estate of the parties, and shall indemnify and hold PATRICK COX and his property
harmless from any failure to so discharge, these items:
W-l. All encumbrances, ad valorem taxes, liens, assessments, or other charges
due or to become due on the real and personal property awardedto CARA
COX in this decree unless express provision is made in this decree to the
contrary.
W-2. All outstanding debts, charges, liabilities, and other obligations incurred
solely by CARA COX except as specifically set out otherwise in this
decree.
W-3. The following debts, charges, liabilities, and obligations:
1, 100% of the debt owed on the Frost Bank Line of Credit, account
number xxx9001, held in the name of CARA COX;
2. 100% of the debt owed on the American Express Credit Card,
account number xxxx3004, held in the name of CARA COX.
W-4. The personal loan held in the name of CARA COX and being payable to
Robert Clement, incurred for the payment of attorney's fees and expenses
in this matter.
<» W-5. All attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred solely by CARA COX
E related to thiscause of action.
2 7.5 Debts and Liabilities to PATRICK COX
| IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that PATRICK COX shall pay, as a part ofthe
1 division ofthe estate ofthe parties, and shall indemnify and hold CARA COX and her property
^ harmless from any failure to sodischarge, these items:
£ Final Decree ofDivorce
•^ Page 6 of 16
is
1
H-l. All encumbrances, ad valorem taxes, liens, assessments, or other charges
due or to become due on the real and personal property awarded to
PATRICK COX in this decree unless express provision is made in this
decree to the contrary.
H-2. All outstanding debts, charges, liabilities, and other obligations incurred
solely by PATRICK COX except as specifically set out otherwise in this
decree.
H-3. The following debts, charges, liabilities, and obligations:
1. 100% of the debt owed to Chase Slate, account number xxx9805,
held in the name of PATRICK COX;
2. 100% of the debt owed on the Diners Club International Credit
Card, account number xxxx9840, held in the name of PATRICK
COX;
3. 100% of all debts, penalties, interestand other liabilities related to
the IRS Tax Notice dated February 17,2014.
H-4. Any andall debts, liabilities and other obligations existing or arising outof
the lawsuit instituted by the Receiver for PATRICK COX (Cause No.
D-l-GN-13-002633, Kelly Crawford, as the Receiver for PATRICK R.
COX and Team Advertising Services, Inc. v. CARA COX and CCLHR
Enterprises, LLC) against CARA COX.
H-5. All attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred solely by PATRICK
COX related to this cause of action.
H-6. All debts, charges, liabilities, and obligationsrelated to the business known
as "Vpizza Restaurant".
H-7. All debts, charges, liabilities, and obligations related to the business known
o
as "CCLHR Enterprises, LLC.
H-8. All debts, charges, liabilities, and obligations related to the business known
as "Osborne Company".
£ H-9. All debts, charges, liabilities, and obligations related to the business known
o
as "Gozetti's Restaurant".
8. Notice
e
»
E
3
8
Q Final Decree of Divorce
"g Page 7 of 16
«s
1
u
IT IS AGREED AND ORDERED that each party shall send to the other party, within
three days of its receipt, a copy of any correspondence from a creditor of taxing authority
concerning any potential liability of the other party.
9. Judgment to Equalize Just and Right Division ofCommunity Estate
^0.
9.1 For the purpose ofeffecting ajust and right division ofthe community estate made (p
in this decree, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that Petitioner, CARA COX is If
awarded judgment of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
NO/100 ($135,000.00) against Respondent, PATRICK COX, with interest atrate ofsi* §mmM S~%
Oppfper yearcompounded annually from the date of judgment, for which let execution issue.
9.2 This judgment is part of the division of community property between the parties
rendered by the Court after hearing evidence submitted to the Court on a reimbursement and other
claims brought by CARA COX on behalf of the community estate and shall not constitute or be
interpreted to be any form of spousal support, alimony, or child support.
93 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to accomplish a just and right division between
the parties, this judgment shall be secured by an Owelty Lien against the real property located at^ ,
at LV*
247 Hedwig Rd., Houston, Texas 77024. Respondent, PATRICK COX is ORDERED to \p
execute and sign an Owelty Lien nlliiiliiil hereto lini'EidrfWBL " and any other documents >
necessary to securethis Judgment with the property listed at 247 Hedwig Road, Houston, Texas
77024 prior to the date of entryofthis order and to have same delivered to the offices of Bobby K.
Newman, located at 3355 W. Alabama, Ste. 444, Houston, Texas 77098,by Diwumliei 23,20M
at 5:00 p.m. UtwiW tytbY\ t
•xm
10. FederalIncome Tax Liability ^£
10.1 IT IS ORDERED that all Federal Income Tax liabilities of the parties accruing
during the marriage of the parties shall be paid pursuant to the Federal Tax Code.
10.2 IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that for the calendar year 2014, each party
SO
shall file an individual income tax return in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.
° 10.3 IT IS ORDERED ANDDECREED that each party shall furnish such information
g> to the otherparty as is requested to prepare federal income tax returns for 2014 withinthirty days
& of receipt of a written request for the information, and in no event shall the available information
be exchanged later than March I, 2015. As requested information becomes available after that
date, it shall beprovided within ten days of receipt
10.4 IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that each party shall preserve for a period of
J seven years from the date of divorce all financial records relating to the community estate. Each
party is ORDERED to allow the other party access to these recordsto determineacquisitiondates
or tax basis or to respond to an IRS examination within five days of receipt of written notice from
i3 Final Decree of Divorce
tj Page 8 of 16
IS
'£
U
the other party. Access shall include the right to copy the records.
10.5 ITISORDERED AND DECREED thatCARA COX isresponsible forpayment of
her taxes on her income and that PATRICK COX is responsible forpayment of his taxes on his
income, except that PATRICK COX is 100% responsible for any and all tax debt related in any
way to the Tax Noticeawarded hereto as "Exhibit 2" dated December 13,2014
11. No Alimony
IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that no provision of this decree shallbe construed as
alimony under theInternal Revenue Code, except asthis decree expressly provides for payment of
maintenance or alimony under the Internal Revenue Code.
12. UndividedAssets and Liabilities
12.1 IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that anyassets of the parties not awarded or
divided by this Final Decree of Divorce are subject to future division as provided in the Texas
Family Code.
12.2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED, as a partof the division of the
community estate of the parties, that any community liability not expressly assumed by a party
under this decree is to be paid by the party incurring the liability, and the party incurring the
liability shall indemnify and hold the other party and his or her property harmless from any failure
to so discharge the liability.
13. Confirmation ofSeparate Property
13.1 The Court finds that certain described property is the separate property of each of
the parties in this matter as providedherein below.
13.2 Separate Property of CARA COX
IT IS ORDERED that the following described property is confirmed as the separate
o property of Petitioner, CARA COX:
S. 1. The real property along with all improvements located at 5518
1 Schumacher Lane, Houston, Texas 77056, including but not limited to
;* any escrow funds, prepaid insurance, Utility deposits, keys, house plans,
2 homesecurity access and code, garage door opener, warranties and service
« contracts, and title and closing documents:
4)
I More formally being described as follows:
a
w
£
3
O
g Final Decree of Divorce
•£ Page 9of 16
O
LOT 18, BLOCK 3, Larchmont Section 1, a subdivision in
Harris County, Texas, according to the map records of Harris
County, Texas.
2. The following jewelry, clothing, andpersonal items:
a. The black fur mink coat gifted to CARA COX by PATRICK
COX;
b. the gray fur minkcoat gifted to CARA COX by PATRICK COX;
c. One paidof Onyx & Rose gold earrings purchase by CARA COX
with her separatepropertymonies;
d. One pair of champagne diamond earrings being gifted to CARA
COX;
e. The Vera Wang wedding dress gifted to CARA COX by
PATRICK COX;
f. The Chanel dress gifted to CARA COX by PATRICK COX;
g. The diamond wedding band gifted to CARA COX by PATRICK
COX; and
h. The gold wedding band gifted to CARA COX by PATRICK
COX.
13.3 Separate Property of PATRICK COX
IT IS ORDERED that the following described property is confirmed as the separate
property andthe separate property liabilities of Respondent, PATRICK COX:
1. Subject to the lien granted herein, the real property along with all
* improvements located at 247 Hedwig Road, Houston, Texas 77024,
^ including but not limited to any escrow funds, prepaid insurance, utility
© deposits, keys, house plans, home security access and code, garage door
gj opener, warranties and service contracts, andtitle and closing documents:
More formally being described as follows:
-a-
2 LOT 1, Claymore Oaks, a subdivision in Harris County,
* Texas, according to the map records of Harris County, Texas.
I 2. Tax Master's Inc.
z
£
E
g Final Decree of Divorce
ta Page 10 of 16
c
U
a. All interest in the stock of the business known as "Tax Masters,
Inc.", held in the name of PATRICK COX, including but not
limited to all furniture, fixtures, machinery, equipment, inventory,
cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and supplies; all personal
property used in connection withthe operation of the business; and
all fights and privileges, past, present, or future, arising out of or in
connection with the operation of the business.
b. AH debts, charges, liabilities, and obligations relatedto the business
known as "Tax Masters, Inc.".
Pawn Tax Enterprises. Ltd.
a. All interest in the stock of the business known as "Pawn Tax
Enterprises, Ltd.", held in the name of PATRICK COX,
including but not limited to all furniture, fixtures, machinery,
equipment, inventory, cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and
supplies; all personal property usedinconnection withthe operation
of the business; and all rightsand privileges, past, present, or future,
arisingout of or in connection with the operation of the business.
b. Alldebts, charges, liabilities, andobligations related to the business
knownas "Pawn Tax Enterprises, Ltd.".
TMLRS Enterprises. Ltd.
a. All interest in the stock of the business known as TMIRS
Enterprises, Ltd.", held in the name of PATRICK COX,
including but not limited to all furniture, fixtures, machinery,
equipment, inventory, cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and
supplies; allpersonal property used in connection with theoperation
of the business; andallrights and privileges, past, present, orfuture,
arising out of or in connection withthe operation of the business.
O
b. Alldebts, charges, liabilities, andobligations related to the business
known as "TMIRS Enterprises, Ltd.".
£ 5. PR Cox & Associates CPA PC
•
1-
a. All interest in the stock of the business known as "PR Cox &
8 Associates CPA PC", held in the name of PATRICK COX
£ including but not limited to all furniture, fixtures, machinery,
% equipment, inventory, cash, receivables, accounts, goods, and
|
z
supplies; all personal property used in connection with the operation
s
ofthe business; and all rights and privileges, past, present, orfuture,
i
g
q Final Decree of Divorce
•^ Page 11 of 16
ts
'£
iJ
ORDERED that each party shall be responsible for his or herown attorney's fees, expenses, and
U
XI costs incurred as a result of legal representation in this case.
E
3
z
IU
a Final Decree of Divorce
•n Page 14 of 16
'£
U
18. Court Costs
IT IS ORDERED that costs ofcourt are to be borne by the party who incurred them.
19. Resolution of Temporary Orders
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner and Respondent are discharged from all further liabilities
and obligations imposed by the temporary order ofthis Court rendered enDwuibu 10,2011. p,
20. Discharge from Discovery Retention Requirement
IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that the parties and their respective attorneys are
discharged from the requirement of keeping and storing the documents produced in this case in
accordance with rule 191.4(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
21. Clarifying Orders
Without affecting the finality ofthis Final Decree ofDivorce, this Court expressly reserves
the right to makeordersnecessary to clarify and enforcethis decree.
22. ReliefNot Granted
IT IS ORDERED that allrelief requested inthis case and not expressly granted is denied.
This is a final judgment, for which let execution and all writs and processes necessary to enforce
this judgment issue. This judgment finally disposes of all claims and allparties and is appealable.
23. Date ofJudgment
SIGNED ON
DEC2320U
0.
BOBfiYjT NEWMAN
State Bar No. 00791347
3355 W. Alabama, Ste. 444
Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: (713)966-4444
Fax: (713)966-4466
Email: bknservice@lnvlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER,
CARA COX
*
o
11
MICHAEL DELANEY
State Bar No. 057£4575
929 Preston, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: (713) 222-2767
Fax: (713) 224-2889
o
Email: mpdl958@earthlink.net
JO ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT,
E PATRICK COX
3
z
I
E
3
8 Final Decree of Divorce
Q
•a Page 16 of 16
4J
y Qf ha**-,.
•• * tp ♦.
O; J \ \ C
O i "^ ~P" \ X
-c
K^l ••