## Facts

- Larry Dickinson (husband) filed for divorce and, during the divorce proceedings, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.
- The bankruptcy court modified the automatic stay to permit the state court to finalize the divorce as to family-law matters and “use of property,” and directed the state court to make recommendations to the bankruptcy court regarding child support and division of community property.
- The trial court granted the divorce, found Larry at fault, and issued a property division described in the decree as a “recommendation” to the bankruptcy court.
- The decree awarded Mary Dickinson (wife) spousal support, a share of Larry’s military pension benefits, and an interest in Larry’s remainder interest in California real property held in a trust created by Larry’s father.
- The trust’s corpus consisted of California real property subject to a third party’s life estate; upon termination of the life estate, the trustee was to distribute the property equally to Larry and his sister, but if Larry died before termination, his share would pass to his sister or her issue.
- Larry argued the trust remainder was his separate property because it was acquired by devise, and he moved for new trial; the motion was denied.
- Larry appealed the property division; the appeal was reinstated after completion of his Chapter 13 plan and discharge.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by characterizing and awarding Mary an interest in Larry’s trust remainder in California real property that was allegedly separate property acquired by devise.
2. Whether Larry made clear and unequivocal judicial admissions in pleadings or discovery that the trust property was community property.
3. Whether the divorce decree’s property provisions violated the bankruptcy automatic stay or exceeded the authority granted by the bankruptcy court’s stay modification.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the divorce but reversed and remanded the property division.
- The trial court abused its discretion by divesting Larry of a separate-property remainder interest acquired by devise through his father’s trust.
- Larry’s pleadings and discovery responses did not constitute clear and unequivocal judicial admissions converting the property’s characterization to community property.
- The decree did not violate the automatic stay because it framed the property division as a recommendation to the bankruptcy court rather than a binding distribution of bankruptcy-estate assets.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired by gift, devise, or descent is separate property; a remainder interest acquired by devise remains separate even if possession or enjoyment is delayed by a life estate.
- A Texas divorce court may not divest a spouse of separate property; mischaracterization of separate property that affects the overall division is an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand of the property division.
- Judicial admissions require deliberate, clear, and unequivocal statements; ambiguous or context-dependent references in pleadings or discovery do not conclusively establish property characterization.
- When a bankruptcy court limits stay relief to family-law matters and directs only recommendations on property division, a state divorce court does not violate the stay by issuing an advisory allocation expressly conditioned as a recommendation to the bankruptcy court.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the husband’s trust remainder in California real property was separate property acquired by devise and could not be awarded to the wife in a divorce; it therefore reversed and remanded the property division while affirming the divorce and rejecting claims that the decree violated the bankruptcy stay because it operated as a recommendation to the bankruptcy court.


Dickinson v. Dickinson, 324 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010)