## Facts

- Robert Bell (husband) and Jan Bell (wife) were married for about two years.
- During the marriage, they purchased a residence for approximately $62,000.
- A $15,000 down payment was made from Robert’s separate property, and the separate character of that $15,000 was not disputed.
- The divorce case proceeded to trial, and a jury recommended that the community estate be divided 60% to Jan and 40% to Robert.
- The trial court’s decree treated the residence as community property and awarded the home to Jan as part of her share.
- Robert appealed the property characterization and resulting division, arguing that his traced separate-property contribution gave him a separate ownership interest in the residence rather than only a possible reimbursement claim.

## Issues

1. When real property is acquired during marriage using both one spouse’s separate funds and community funds or credit, is the property entirely community property, or is it owned in undivided proportional interests by the contributing separate estate and the community estate?
2. If the trial court characterizes such mixed-fund property as wholly community property and divides it as community, must the property division be set aside and reconsidered?

## Decision

- The court of appeals held that property acquired partly with separate funds and partly with community funds is held in a tenancy in common between the contributing separate estate and the community estate, in proportion to each estate’s contribution to the total purchase price.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by treating the residence as 100% community property despite the undisputed tracing of Robert’s separate funds into the purchase.
- Because the incorrect characterization affected the divorce property division, the court reversed the portion of the decree dividing the marital property and remanded for a new division consistent with the parties’ respective ownership interests.

## Legal Principles

- Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed community property, but the presumption can be rebutted by clear evidence tracing separate funds into the acquisition.
- When separate property and community property are both used to acquire an asset during marriage, the separate estate and the community estate may each own an undivided interest in the asset.
- In a mixed-funds acquisition of real property, ownership is allocated pro rata: the contributing separate estate owns an undivided interest equal to the ratio its separate contribution bears to the total consideration, with the remaining interest owned by the community estate.
- The community estate’s interest is subject to a “just and right” division in divorce; a spouse’s separate-property interest is not properly treated as part of the community estate to be divided.

## Conclusion

Bell v. Bell holds that a residence purchased during marriage with both separate and community funds is not automatically wholly community property. Instead, the contributing spouse’s separate estate and the community estate own the property as tenants in common in proportion to their contributions to the purchase price. Because Robert conclusively traced a $15,000 separate-property down payment into the acquisition, the trial court erred in characterizing the home as entirely community property and dividing it on that basis, requiring reversal of the property division and remand for a new division consistent with proportional ownership.


Bell v. Bell, 593 S.W.2d 424 (1980)