Chintam v. Chintam

1

DEEPA CHINTAM A/K/A DEEPA ADEMA, Appellant v. BHOOMANNA CHINTAM, Appellee

No. 05-22-00022-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

August 21, 2023

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-15178

Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARICELA BREEDLOVE JUSTICE

Appellant Deepa Chintam a/k/a Deepa Adema (Adema) brought suit against her former spouse appellee Bhoomanna Chintam (Chintam) requesting an order under Texas Family Code § 9.201 to award her certain real property and bank accounts that were not divided in the parties' divorce decree. After a bench trial, the trial court denied the relief requested and rendered judgment for Chintam. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that the final decree disposed of all property subject to division, we affirm.

Background

Adema and Chintam were married on May 7, 2006. They were divorced by final decree dated August 1, 2017, after entering into a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) on July 18, 2017. Under the MSA, the parties "agree[d] to compromise and settle the claims and controversies between them, including any and all property and debt division disputes." The parties further agreed that "[t]he assets will be divided as stated on attached Exhibit A incorporated herein."

In paragraph 9(g) of the MSA, Chintam represented that "any community interest in any real estate or assets located in India is on Exhibit A attached herein." On Exhibit A under "Assets, Real Estate, India Property," there is only one item listed: "Land in Armoor, Nizamabad District, Telangana, India i/n/o Deepa Chintam." Exhibit A also lists four bank accounts held in the ICICI Bank in India.

In paragraph 10(b) of the MSA, the parties agreed that "[a]ny undisclosed asset is awarded to the other party." The MSA also includes a handwritten paragraph 9(h), "Any non disclosed assets awarded to the party who was unaware of the asset."

The parties' Final Decree of Divorce signed on August 1, 2017, provides in part:

Agreement of Parties

The Court finds that the parties have entered into a written agreement as contained in this decree by virtue of having approved this decree as to both form and substance. To the extent permitted by law, the parties stipulate the agreement is enforceable as a contract. The Court approves the agreement of the parties as contained in this Final Decree of Divorce.

The agreements in this Final Decree of Divorce were reached in mediation with Laura Roach on July 18, 2017. This Final Decree of Divorce is stipulated to represent a merger of a mediated settlement agreement between the parties. To the extent there exist any differences between the mediated settlement agreement and this Final Decree of Divorce, this Final Decree of Divorce shall control in all instances.

In the final decree, Chintam was awarded one piece of real property in India^[1]and the funds in nine bank accounts. Four of the bank accounts are held in the ICICI Bank in India and their account numbers match the ICICI account numbers on Exhibit A to the MSA. Adema was awarded six pieces of real property in Texas and the funds in five United States bank accounts. The decree does not mention any other real property in India or any other ICICI accounts.

On July 31, 2019, Adema brought suit against Chintam alleging that he "affirmatively hid from [her], and failed to disclose his interest in or control of, [certain] property, all in an effort to defraud her." She specified five pieces of real property and two ICICI bank accounts in her petition.^[2] All are located in India. Adema sought division of the property or a money judgment in lieu of a division.^[3] The case proceeded to a bench trial on October 5, 2021. In a judgment dated October 26, 2021, the trial court ruled that Adema's petition should be denied in its entirety. The court ordered that Adema take nothing. This appeal followed.

Issues

Adema asserts seven issues challenging the trial court's judgment that we summarize as follows:

1. The trial court erred by failing to award the property or its proceeds to Adema because the property was not divided in the divorce decree;

2. The trial "resulted in a violation of due process or fundamental lack of fairness" arising from Chintam's bad faith and the trial court's erroneous rulings;

3. The trial court erred by permitting Chintam's lawyers to testify as fact witnesses despite Adema's objection;

4. The trial court reversibly erred by admitting certain exhibits into evidence;

5. There is insufficient evidence to support certain findings of fact;

6. Certain findings of fact are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; and

7. There is insufficient evidence to support certain of the trial court's conclusions of law.

Standards of Review

"A trial court's findings of fact issued after a bench trial have the same weight, and are judged by the same appellate standards, as a jury verdict." Tex. Outfitters Ltd., LLC v. Nicholson, 572 S.W.3d 647, 653 (Tex. 2019).^[4] When the appellate record contains a reporter's record as it does in this case, findings of fact are not conclusive on appeal if the contrary is established as a matter of law or if there is no evidence to support the findings. Ramsey v. Davis, 261 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied).

We review a trial court's legal conclusions de novo. Walker v. Anderson, 232 S.W.3d 899, 908 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). We evaluate those conclusions independently to determine whether the trial court correctly drew the conclusion from the facts. Id.

A party challenging the legal sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which it has the burden of proof must demonstrate on appeal that the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, all vital facts in support of the issue. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). When a party challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support an adverse finding on which it did not have the burden of proof, the party must demonstrate that no evidence supports the finding. Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Peña, 442 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam).

In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding, indulging every reasonable inference supporting it. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex. 2005). We "must credit favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not." Id. at 827. The "final test for legal sufficiency" is "whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review." Id. "A legal sufficiency challenge fails if more than a scintilla of evidence supports the finding." Tex. Outfitters, LLC, Ltd., 572 S.W.3d at 653.

In contrast, in determining factual sufficiency, we "must consider and weigh all of the evidence." Dow Chem. Co., 46 S.W.3d at 242. A party challenging the factual sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which it has the burden of proof must demonstrate on appeal that the evidence is so weak or the adverse finding "is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust." Id. When an appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence on an adverse finding on which it did not have the burden of proof, the party must demonstrate there is insufficient evidence to support the finding. Hoss v. Alardin, 338 S.W.3d 635, 651 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.).

In applying these sufficiency standards, we remain mindful that this Court is not a factfinder. See Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex. 1998). In a nonjury trial, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the testimony's weight. Tate v. Commodore Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 767 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied). The trial court may believe one witness and disbelieve others and may resolve any inconsistencies in a witness's testimony. McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. 1986).

The admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Estate of Finney, 424 S.W.3d 608, 612 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013, no pet.). A judgment will not be reversed based on the admission or exclusion of evidence unless the appellant establishes that (1) the trial court's ruling was in error and (2) the error was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment. Id. When reviewing whether evidence was properly admitted or excluded, the appellate court must review the entire record. Id.

Applicable Law

If a Texas court "failed to dispose of property subject to division in a final decree of divorce or annulment even though the court had jurisdiction over the spouses or over the property," a former spouse may file suit "to divide property not divided or awarded to a spouse in a final decree of divorce or annulment." Tex. Fam. Code Ann § 9.201(a). As the post-divorce petitioner, Adema bears the burden to prove that the trial court did not consider or dispose of the India Properties and the Bank Accounts in the final divorce decree. See Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (petitioner in statutory post-divorce action bore burden to prove that divorce court did not consider or dispose of retirement benefits and accrued bonuses in final decree).

"At its core, Subchapter C [Family Code §§ 9.201-9.205] allows property that is no longer community property to be treated by a...