## Facts

- Stephen G. Andrle (husband) and Deanna Lou Andrle (wife) married January 15, 1959, and divorced August 6, 1987.
- During marriage, the husband purchased a private disability insurance policy issued by Western Life Insurance Company; the policy was not employment-related.
- Policy premiums were paid with community funds.
- After the husband became disabled, the insurer initially denied coverage, leading to litigation.
- The dispute was resolved by a lump-sum payment of $38,992.32 and ongoing disability payments of $1,200 per month; $400 from each monthly payment went to the husband’s attorneys.
- The husband agreed that the lump sum and disability payments received before divorce were community property.
- He contested the award to the wife of one-half of the disability payments to be received after the divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court abuses its discretion by characterizing post-divorce disability payments as community property when the underlying private disability policy was acquired during marriage with community funds.
2. Whether future disability payments under such a policy are a divisible vested property right or an undivided “mere expectancy” not subject to division.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the divorce decree.
- The disability policy acquired during marriage with community funds was a community property right at the time of divorce.
- Benefits flowing from that vested community right remained community property even if paid after divorce.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the wife an undivided one-half interest in future monthly disability benefits.

## Legal Principles

- The character of property is determined by the facts existing at the time of divorce.
- A disability insurance policy purchased during marriage with community funds constitutes a community property right.
- Benefits from a vested community property right are community property even when paid after divorce.
- Divorce courts may divide vested community rights with deferred or contingent payment, but may not divide a “mere expectancy.”
- On appeal from a property division in divorce, the standard is abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Because the community estate owned the disability policy at divorce and the right to benefits was treated as a vested incident of that policy rather than a mere expectancy, the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding the wife one-half of the post-divorce disability payments.


Andrle v. Andrle, 751 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1988, writ denied)