## Facts

- Herman Tyeskie (husband) and Inger Tyeskie (wife) married on January 3, 2009.
- In 2015, Herman filed for divorce in Gregg County, Texas; Inger counterpetitioned and asserted a claim for reimbursement to her separate estate for expenditures allegedly made for the community’s benefit.
- During the marriage, the parties bought a home in 2013 and agreed at trial that the home’s value was $245,900.00 and that the down payment was $52,576.21.
- The down payment was paid from Inger’s savings account, which had contained $162,168.61 before the marriage (separate property).
- Evidence showed that, by the time of the 2013 home purchase, community funds had also flowed into the same savings account, including transfers of Inger’s employment earnings that were first deposited into a checking account and then moved into the savings account.
- Inger claimed the down-payment money came from her separate funds and sought a reimbursement credit of $52,576.21 to her separate estate.
- The trial court concluded the down payment was made by the community estate because the account contained commingled funds and Inger did not prove the down-payment funds were traceable to separate property.
- After the final decree, the trial court signed a post-judgment turnover order to aid enforcement of the property division; Inger argued on appeal that the order was entered without notice and violated due process.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by denying Inger reimbursement to her separate estate for the $52,576.21 home down payment when the payment came from an account containing both separate and community funds?
2. Did the trial court err, or violate due process, by entering a post-judgment turnover order without providing Inger notice, and was any such complaint preserved?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana, affirmed the final decree of divorce and the post-judgment turnover order.
- On reimbursement, the court held the evidence showed the down payment came from an account with commingled funds and Inger did not trace the down-payment funds to her separate property by clear and convincing evidence; therefore, the trial court did not err in treating the down payment as made by the community estate and denying reimbursement.
- On the turnover order, the court rejected Inger’s notice/due-process challenge because she failed to show a legal requirement for additional notice under the circumstances and, independently, failed to preserve the complaint in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed community property, and a spouse claiming separate property must prove that characterization by clear and convincing evidence.
- When separate and community funds are mixed in the same account, the spouse asserting a separate-property claim must trace the funds used in the transaction to separate property by clear and convincing evidence; showing that separate funds once existed in the account is not enough.
- A reimbursement claim based on alleged separate-estate payments for the community’s benefit fails if the claimant cannot prove the expenditure actually came from separate property.
- A trial court’s characterization and division of property in a divorce is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the appellate court will uphold the judgment if it is supported by evidence and correct legal standards.
- Complaints about lack of notice or due process in post-judgment enforcement proceedings must be raised in the trial court to preserve error for appeal.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed because Inger did not meet the clear-and-convincing tracing burden to prove the home down payment was paid from her separate property rather than from commingled funds, and her challenge to the post-judgment turnover order failed both for lack of a shown notice requirement and for failure to preserve the complaint.


Tyeskie v. Tyeskie, 558 S.W.3d 719 (2018)