Perez v. Perez

1

JOY M. PEREZ, Appellant v. JONATHAN L. PEREZ, Appellee

No. 01-22-00290-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

May 4, 2023

On Appeal from the 201st District Court Travis County Texas^[1]Trial Court Case No. D-1-FM-19-007880.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Julie Countiss, Justice.

Appellant Joy M. Perez ("Joy"), challenges the trial court's final divorce decree, entered after a bench trial, in her suit for divorce against appellee, Jonathan L Perez ("Jonathan"). In seven issues, Joy contends that the trial court erred in determining that the parties did not have an enforceable premarital agreement, in characterizing separate property as community property, and in dividing the community property.

We reverse and remand.

Background

In her first amended petition for divorce, Joy alleged that she and Jonathan "were married on or about October 23, 2015 and ceased to live together as husband and wife on or around October 15, 2019." According to Joy, the marriage had become "insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." Joy alleged that she and Jonathan had "entered into a premarital agreement" before getting married.

Joy argued that she should "be awarded a disproportionate share" of the community estate because she was "the spouse to whom conservatorship of the child [wa]s likely to be granted"; because of her financial and other contributions, including those from her own separate estate to the community estate during the marriage; because of her reimbursement claims; because of the "[c]ommunity [estate's] indebtedness and liabilities"; and because of Jonathan's "waste of community assets." Joy requested that the trial court award her attorney's fees and costs.

Jonathan filed a counterpetition for divorce in which he stipulated to the dates of marriage and separation alleged by Joy and the reason for seeking the divorce. He requested a "just and right" division of the community estate. Jonathan also specifically requested that the trial court order that Joy's separate estate reimburse the community estate "for funds or assets" it had expended "for the benefit of [Joy's] separate estate" because "[t]hose expenditures resulted in a direct benefit to [Joy's] separate estate" and "[t]he community estate ha[d] not been adequately compensated for or benefited from the expenditure of those funds or assets," and if it were not reimbursed, Joy's separate estate would be unjustly enriched "at the expense of the community estate."^[2] Further, Jonathan requested that the trial court award him "post-divorce maintenance for a reasonable period," his attorney's fees, and costs.

During pretrial discovery, Joy served Jonathan with, among other things, a request for admissions.^[3] In his response to Joy's request, Jonathan made the following admissions:

1. He "signed a [p]re-[m]arital [a]greement/[p]artition and [e]xchange [a]greement [(the "premarital agreement")] prior to [his] marriage to [Joy] on October 23, 2015."

2. He signed the premarital agreement "by writing [his] signature and [his] initials on the document."

3. Joy "signed the same [premarital agreement] that [Jonathan] signed."

4. He "took the [premarital agreement] to have it notarized."

5. He "took the signed [premarital agreement] to have it notarized on the day of the rehearsal dinner before [his] wedding to [Joy]."

6. Joy "was with [him] when [he] signed the [premarital agreement]."

7. He "was with [Joy] when she signed the [premarital agreement]." . . . .

14. The premarital agreement that he signed "provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property and financial obligations of [Joy] prior to [his] signing the document."

15. He "voluntarily signed the waiver of any right to disclosure of the property and financial obligations of [Joy]."

. . . .

17. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the [premarital agreement] signed by [Jonathan] prior to October 23, 2015."

18. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 1 above."

19. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 2 above."

20. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 3 above."

21. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 4 above."

22. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 5 above."

23. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 6 above."

24. The premarital agreement "attached as Exhibit A" to Joy's request for admissions was "an unsigned copy of the document referenced in Admission No. 7 above."

At trial, the trial court admitted into evidence a copy of Joy's request for admissions, as Exhibit P-2, and a copy of Jonathan's response to Joy's request for admissions, as Exhibit P-52. Joy confirmed during her testimony that Exhibit P-52 was her request for admissions that she served on Jonathan and Exhibit P-2 was Jonathan's response to her request for admissions. Joy also stated that her request for admission-Exhibit P-52-included a copy of the premarital agreement attached as "Exhibit A."

Joy testified that she believed that she and Jonathan "needed to have" a premarital agreement "in writing because of [her] financial situation going in[to]" the marriage and Jonathan's "lack of financial situation going into marriage." Before marriage, Joy "had an inheritance" and an individual retirement account, and she owned a house in Austin, Texas. Her family had "highly encouraged" her to get a premarital agreement, so she consulted with an attorney.

Joy and Jonathan began their relationship about six months before they were married. A month or two before the wedding, Joy "initiated discussions" with Jonathan about entering into a premarital agreement. The attorneys that Joy had hired to draft the premarital agreement had it "ready to sign about a week before the wedding." Joy and Jonathan "printed [the premarital agreement] the morning of the rehearsal dinner, the day before" the wedding, and each of them brought a copy of the premarital agreement to a notary public at the customer service desk of a nearby grocery store to have it notarized. Joy signed her copy of the premarital agreement before the notary public, but Jonathan had "already signed" his copy of the premarital agreement before he arrived at the store. The notary refused to notarize Jonathan's copy of the premarital agreement because Jonathan had not brought his driver's license with him to the grocery store, "so he had no proof of identity," and because Jonathan's "initials on the bottom of each page" of the agreement were written in "different style[s]."

The next day was their wedding day, and Joy "couldn't figure out a way" to get the premarital agreement "notarized that day." As to the signed copies of the premarital agreement, Joy, "in the haste of the wedding," did "not remember what [she] did" with them.

After she filed her petition for divorce, Joy searched for the signed copies of the premarital agreement and contacted the attorneys who had drafted the agreement because she "had assumed" that "they had" the "signed copy." But Joy "couldn't find [the premarital agreement] in paper form." Joy believed that she "had a scanned copy" on Joy's and Jonathan's household computer, but she no longer had access to that computer because "Jonathan came into [their] house in the middle of the night and took" it.

According to Joy, Exhibit P-7, which the trial court admitted into evidence, was "an unsigned copy of the final version" of the premarital agreement that the attorneys "had sent [her and Jonathan] to get signed," and it was the same as the one that they had signed. Exhibit P-7 was the same document attached as "Exhibit A" to the request for admissions that Joy had served on Jonathan, which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit P-52.

Under the premarital agreement, Joy and Jonathan "represent[d] and warrant[ed]" to each other that "he or she ha[d], to the best of his or her ability, made to the other party a complete and accurate, fair, and reasonable disclosure of the nature and extent of the community property and the separate property of the parties, including values, and financial obligations," including but "not limited to the property and liabilities set forth" in Schedules A, B, C, and D attached to the premarital agreement.

Schedule A of the premarital agreement listed as Jonathan's separate property any future ownership by Jonathan in two parcels of real property located in Austin, one on Jamestown Drive and the other on Hartwick Place; a 2003 Dodge car; and all retirement funds "existing by reason of [Jonathan]'s past, present, or future employment," including an "Apple Inc. 401(k)" account and "all Apple Inc. stock owned prior to [the] date of marriage." Joy and Jonathan agreed that the properties listed on Schedule A, including "all mutations, changes, and increases in kind or value" of such property, "all income and revenues" from such property, and any inheritance "gifted to Jonathan on or after the date" that the parties executed the premarital agreement constituted Jonathan's separate property.

Schedule B of the premarital agreement listed as Joy's separate property "100% of any 401(k)...