## Facts

- Wife filed for divorce; husband counterclaimed and alleged wife had diverted community assets to a third party.
- Wife later entered bankruptcy; her bankruptcy trustee intervened to have marital property applied to her creditors before division of the estate.
- Divorce was granted with property issues reserved; a later trial determined classification and division of major assets and responsibility for debts.
- Before marriage, husband owned an undivided one-half interest in a 320-acre tract used for a dairy; during marriage he acquired the other half and titled it in both spouses’ names.
- Wife operated a dress shop and incurred inventory debts with the husband’s permission; creditors sought to reach the marital estate, including the dairy assets.
- The trial court classified: (i) one-half of the 320-acre tract as husband’s separate property, (ii) the other half as community property, and (iii) the dairy business and related personalty as community property.
- A jury found the wife did not make gifts of property to the alleged recipient; the trial court nonetheless treated certain transfers as fraudulent and adjusted the property division.

## Issues

1. Whether the 320-acre tract and dairy operation were correctly characterized as separate or community property.
2. Whether the dairy assets were sole- or joint-management community property for purposes of liability for the wife’s business debts incurred with the husband’s permission.
3. Whether the trial court could adjust the property division based on alleged fraudulent gifts despite the jury’s finding that no gifts were made.
4. Whether the overall division of the marital estate constituted an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- Affirmed the classifications that (i) the husband’s premarital one-half interest in the 320-acre tract remained separate property and (ii) the subsequently acquired one-half interest was community property.
- Affirmed that the dairy business and related personalty were community property subject to joint management and therefore reachable for the wife’s authorized business debts.
- Held the trial court erred by disregarding the jury’s negative finding on gifts/fraud; reversed and rendered to eliminate fraud-based adjustments inconsistent with that verdict.
- Otherwise upheld the property division as not so disproportionate as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
- Disposition: affirmed in part; reversed and rendered in part.

## Legal Principles

- Separate property includes property owned before marriage; a spouse’s premarital undivided interest retains its separate character absent proof of a gift or other basis to change its character.
- Property acquired during marriage is presumptively community property; later placing title in both spouses’ names does not alone convert a premarital separate interest into community property.
- Community property may be subject to sole or joint management; “all other” community property not within a spouse’s sole-management category is generally joint-management property.
- Joint-management community property is liable for debts incurred by either spouse when incurred with authority or as a community obligation, including authorized business debts.
- A trial court may not disregard a supported jury finding on a disputed fact issue; property-division adjustments premised on facts rejected by the jury are reversible error.
- Divorce courts have broad discretion to make a “just and right” division of the community estate; appellate review is for clear abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court largely upheld the trial court’s classification of a mixed separate/community land interest and treated the dairy operation as joint-management community property available to satisfy the wife’s authorized business debts, but it reversed the portion of the judgment that imposed fraud-based adjustments contrary to the jury’s finding that no gifts were made.


Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. 1975)