## Facts

- Albert C. Arrington and Ruby D. Arrington married in 1963; each owned substantial separate property at the time of marriage.
- In the divorce proceeding, the trial court divided the marital estate and awarded Ruby possession of the couple’s dog, “Bonnie Lou,” using “managing conservator” terminology and granting Albert visitation.
- While the divorce was pending and subject to a restraining order and injunction preserving assets, Albert withdrew $28,419 in community funds from a bank account over time.
- Albert admitted the withdrawals at trial.
- The trial court treated the withdrawn funds as property already received by Albert and adjusted the remaining property division accordingly.
- After the written judgment was signed, Albert filed a motion for new trial; Ruby sought dismissal of the appeal for untimeliness.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on an allegedly late-filed motion for new trial.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the “just and right” property division by charging Albert with the $28,419 withdrawn in violation of court orders and by considering the parties’ overall property positions.
3. Whether the trial court erred by awarding Ruby “managing conservatorship” (possession) of the dog instead of awarding the dog to Albert.
4. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding the motion for new trial was timely and the appeal was properly perfected.
- The court affirmed the divorce judgment in full.
- The court held there was no abuse of discretion in treating the $28,419 Albert withdrew as part of his share of the community estate and awarding him a smaller portion of remaining assets.
- The court upheld awarding the dog to Ruby as part of the property division, noting evidence the dog was a gift to Ruby and that Albert had agreed to Ruby’s possession with visitation.
- The court rejected the findings-and-conclusions complaint because the requesting party did not satisfy procedural requirements to secure findings.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas divorce cases, the trial court has broad discretion to divide the community estate in a manner that is “just and right,” and reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion.
- A court may account for a spouse’s depletion or appropriation of community property during the divorce, including withdrawals made in violation of restraining orders, by charging the withdrawn amount against that spouse’s share.
- Pets are personal property for purposes of divorce property division; child conservatorship statutes do not apply even if a decree uses conservatorship terminology.
- To complain on appeal about the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the requesting party must comply with procedural steps required to obtain them.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the divorce decree, ruling that the trial court acted within its discretion by offsetting community funds withdrawn by the husband in violation of court orders, treating the dog as personal property awarded to the wife (with agreed visitation), and declining to issue findings where the procedural requirements were not met.


Arrington v. Arrington, 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)