Case Alert: Blackwell v. Holzer (Houston)

The case involves an appeal by William Stenson Blackwell against Robin Ann Holzer regarding the trial court's final decree of divorce, specifically the characterization of certain real property as Holzer's separate property and the award of conditional appellate attorney's fees. The couple married in 2011, and Holzer filed for divorce in 2021. The trial court dissolved the marriage on grounds of insupportability, appointed the parents as joint managing conservators of their two children, and divided the marital property.

The main issue in the appeal is the characterization of the residence on Fairview Avenue as Holzer's separate property. Holzer purchased the house in 1999, two years before marrying Blackwell, and it served as the couple's marital home. In 2003, Holzer refinanced the property and signed a general warranty deed granting Blackwell an undivided one-half interest in the property. The trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Holzer purchased the residence before marriage, did not intend to make a gift of the property to Blackwell, and provided an alternate reason for executing the general warranty deed. The court concluded that refinancing did not change the character of the property. 

Blackwell appealed, arguing that the court mischaracterized the property and that Holzer was not entitled to conditional appellate attorney's fees. The court's findings of fact after a bench trial have the same force as a jury verdict, and challenges to property characterization or division in a divorce decree are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Property possessed by either spouse during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property, but clear and convincing evidence is required to establish separate property. 

The case involved a "gift presumption" because Holzer conveyed an undivided one-half interest in the property to Blackwell in 2003, raising a presumption that she intended to gift him an interest in the property. However, Holzer testified that she did not intend to gift Blackwell a portion of the property and only added him as a cosigner due to lender requirements during refinancing. Blackwell relied on the 2003 deed to support his claim, but the court found that Holzer rebutted the gift presumption with clear and convincing evidence of her intent.

This section of the opinion is a nice summary for these cases involving residences that were purchased prior to marriage but refinanced during the marriage:

From the evidence presented, the trial court reasonably could have concluded that Holzer rebutted the presumption of a gift by testifying she had no donative intent and she only intended to refinance the house. See In re Marriage of Crist, 661 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2023, no pet.) (affirming the trial court's finding that wife overcame the gift presumption by testifying that she never intended to gift an interest in her home to husband and that she only intended to refinance the home to pay off debts, despite husband's conflicting testimony); Harrison v. Harrison, 321 S.W.3d 899, 903 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (noting that courts are “inconsistent” when determining what evidence is needed to rebut the presumption, but concluding that the contesting spouse “rebutted the presumption by testifying he did not intend to make a gift and by providing an alternative reason for purchasing the property”). 

The trial court's decision to characterize the home as Holzer's separate property was affirmed, and Blackwell's issues were overruled. The court did not address Blackwell's additional issues regarding harm from the alleged error and Holzer's entitlement to attorney's fees, as they were contingent on the outcome of the appeal. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.