Renteria, Maria Luisa Cantu v. Renteria, Joel--Appeal from 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County

NUMBER 13-00-155-CV 
  
 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

MARIA LUISA CANTU RENTERIA, Appellant,

v.

JOEL RENTERIA, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

Appellant, Maria Renteria, appeals the division of property ordered in her decree of divorce. She argues that she did not agree to the decree and it is thus invalid. We hold her consent to the judgment is not necessary and AFFIRM.

This divorce case was tried to the bench, and after the parties rested, they were given additional time to submit evidence on appellant's claimed right of reimbursement for the separate funds she allegedly invested in the marital home. After a few weeks appellee moved for judgment and had the motion set for hearing, with notice to appellant.(1) She neither responded to the motion nor appeared for the hearing. The trial court accordingly signed the proposed decree of divorce. The decree does not bear her purported agreement or signature.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering the decree for two reasons. First she asserts that the court should not have entered the judgment because she did not agree to it. This is not a consent decree that required her agreement, but rather the result of a contested trial on the merits. The consent of the litigant to the judgment is not required. Cothron Aviation, Inc. v. Avco Corp., 843 S.W.2d 260, 263 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) ("[C]onsent is only required for an agreed judgment."). Her first point of error is overruled.

Next, appellant asserts that the trial court did not enter a decree based on the evidence adduced at trial. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to award her reimbursement for monies she claims were expended on the couples' marital residence.

The evidence was conflicting. Appellant testified that she bought the marital residence for $35,000, using $12,000 in separate property funds to buy it. Appellee, Joel Renteria, testified that he provided appellant $8,000 or $10,000 from his separate property to buy the home. Neither party provided any evidence other than their own testimony. In its decree the trial court awarded to each party an undivided one-half interest in the home. Based upon the evidence the trial court did no err in making this ruling. The trial court has broad discretion in dividing the property in a divorce action. Butler v. Butler, 975 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). We overrule the issue.

We AFFIRM the judgment.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 14th day of December, 2000.

1. Appellant does not complain that she did not receive notice of the hearing.