## Facts

- Brian Harrington and M. Gay Harrington lived together with their children and rented several residences with the leases in both of their names.
- After roughly three years of renting together, Brian and Gay became ceremonially married and decided to buy a house for the family.
- The couple searched for a home together, selected a house, and both attended the real-estate closing.
- At closing, record title was placed only in Brian’s name, which the evidence indicated was done for credit and convenience because Gay was quitting her job to attend law school full-time.
- The parties referred to the residence as “our home,” intended to raise their children there, and treated the property as jointly held in day-to-day life.
- Both Brian and Gay contributed financially to repairs and improvements to the home.
- In the divorce, the trial court found that the parties’ conduct showed an oral partnership regarding the home and that they intended it to be owned, used, and enjoyed by both of them.
- The divorce decree awarded Brian and Gay equal undivided interests in the house as tenants in common.
- Brian appealed, arguing that the award improperly took his separate property and that the evidence did not support an oral partnership.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court unconstitutionally divest Brian of separate property by awarding Gay a one-half interest in a residence titled solely in Brian’s name?
2. Was there legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that an oral partnership (or equivalent joint ownership arrangement) existed as to the house?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce judgment.
- The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the parties agreed and acted in a manner consistent with joint ownership of the home, even though the deed was in Brian’s name.
- Because the record supported Gay’s ownership interest arising from the parties’ agreement and conduct, the decree did not amount to an unconstitutional taking of Brian’s separate property.
- The trial court’s award of equal undivided interests as tenants in common was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Texas divorce courts may not divest a spouse of separate property in violation of constitutional protections, but a court may recognize and enforce the other spouse’s proven ownership interest in property.
- A partnership or joint enterprise may be shown by oral agreement and by the parties’ actions, including shared decision-making, shared purpose, and shared contributions tied to acquiring or improving property.
- Record title is evidence of ownership but is not always conclusive when other evidence shows a different agreement about beneficial ownership.
- On appeal from a divorce decree, the trial court’s findings and property division receive deference; an appellate court will not reverse absent reversible error, including lack of legally sufficient evidence or a clear misuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Harrington v. Harrington affirmed a divorce decree awarding each spouse an equal undivided interest in a home titled only in the husband’s name because the evidence showed the couple intended shared ownership and acted consistently with an oral partnership in acquiring and maintaining the residence, so the award recognized an existing ownership interest rather than divesting separate property.


Harrington v. Harrington, 742 S.W.2d 722 (1987)