Johnnie Wayne Leonard v. Patricia K. Leonard--Appeal from 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-03-00696-CV

Johnnie Wayne LEONARD,

Appellant

v.

Patricia K. LEONARD,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000-CI-11619

Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 12, 2004

AFFIRMED

As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of this court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

DISCUSSION

Prior to their marriage, appellant Johnnie Wayne Leonard and appellee Patricia K. Leonard purchased a home as joint owners. In the subsequent divorce decree, the trial court characterized the house as community property, awarded appellant and appellee each a fifty percent interest in the house as their separate property, and ordered the house sold and the proceeds equally divided. In a single issue on appeal, appellant claims the trial court mischaracterized the house as community property, thereby divesting him and appellee of their separate property.

The mere mischaraterization of separate property as community property does not require reversal. In re Morris, 12 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2000, no pet.); Tate v. Tate, 55 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2000, no pet.); Magill v. Magill, 816 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). Here, the trial court mischaracterized the house as community property, but subsequently awarded appellant and appellee an equal interest in the house as their separate property. On appeal, appellant does not argue that the mischaracterization caused any disparity in the division of the parties' community estate, and he does not challenge the trial court's apportionment of the proceeds from the sale of the house. For these reasons, appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion.

CONCLUSION

We overrule appellant's issue on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.