IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BOBBY GENE CROOK AND HAROLD WESLEY CROOK

AFFIRM; Opinion issued April 29, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-00724-CV
............................
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BOBBY GENE CROOK AND
HAROLD WESLEY CROOK
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 06-0217
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Bridges
        Appellant Harold Wesley Crook appeals the trial court's order denying his motion for enforcement. We affirm.
Background
 
        The trial court signed the final decree of divorce on March 21, 2007, which awarded appellant “[a]ll household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, art objects, collectibles . . . in the possession of the husband or subject to his sole control, and those items specifically awarded to him as listed in the mediated settlement agreement attached as Exhibit 'A' and incorporated fully herein.” The decree similarly awarded wife, appellee Bobby Gene Crook, “[a]ll household furniture, furnishings, fixtures, goods, art objects, collectibles . . . in the possession of the wife or subject to her sole control, including those items specifically awarded to her as listed in the mediated settlement agreement attached as Exhibit 'A' and incorporated fully herein.”
        Appellant complains he did not receive certain items awarded to him. Specifically, he contends he did not receive the following items: “jars of coins (item 18), a wooden duck decoy (item 17), Carnival glass plate (item 25), all remaining Cocina [sic] dolls (item 30), and the turquoise squash blossom necklace listed as an exclusion on item 12 of wife's list.”   See Footnote 1  The trial court held a hearing on appellant's first amended petition for enforcement of property division. Following the hearing, the trial court issued its order denying the petition for enforcement and this appeal ensued.
 
Analysis
 
        In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to enforce the property division because it amounted to altering or changing the court's prior property division. A trial court can render enforcement orders to assist in the implementation or clarification of a property division made in a divorce decree, but cannot alter or amend the substantive division of property specified in the divorce decree. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.006(a); 9.007 (Vernon 2006). We review a trial court's order on a motion for enforcement under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 103 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied); In re T.J.L., 97 S.W.3d 257, 265 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). To determine whether a trial court abused its discretion, we must decide whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles; in other words, we must decide whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable. See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). An abuse of discretion does not occur where the trial court bases its decisions on conflicting evidence. See In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). When, as here, the trial court makes no separate findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must draw every reasonable inference supported by the record in favor of the trial court's judgment. Gainous, 219 at 103.
        Of the items raised in appellant's brief, appellant testified that he did not receive a wooden duck decoy, a jar of coins, a Carnival glass plate, Kachina dolls, and a turquoise squash blossom necklace. The record reveals appellant was awarded the residence following the divorce and he testified he did not move out of the house although, at one point, he testified appellee had control of the residence. Appellant stated he did not discover the referenced items were missing until 25 days following the divorce when he returned home after a two or three-week stay in the hospital.   See Footnote 2  Appellant testified appellee moved out of the residence in 2004 and, at another point, stated she did not move out until after the divorce in 2007. Appellant stated that appellee was not at the residence when he returned to the home and the house was unlocked with a key on the patio table.
        Appellant did not testify, however, that he attempted to retrieve the items in question or that appellee prevented him from taking possession of those items or the residence. Instead, appellant testified “she must have” taken the items and then said “[s]omebody have.” Later, he admitted, “[W]ho knows who got them. I don't know who.”
        Based upon the evidence before it, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for enforcement and, therefore, did not improperly alter or amend the decree. See Gainous, 219 S.W.3d at 103; In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d at 366. See also Fowler v. Fowler, 2008 WL 2330987, *3 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 5, 2008, no pet.) (when wife did not offer evidence that she had tried to obtain property, that husband had refused her access or that husband had disposed of it and evidence indicated wife had access to the property and had voluntarily left it behind, trial court properly declined to issue an enforcement order).         We overrule appellant's sole issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DAVID L. BRIDGES
                                                          JUSTICE
 
090724F.P05
 
Footnote 1 In his first amended petition for enforcement of property division, appellant also complains he did not receive a silver dollar collection, a large leather recliner, a brown lamp, and a brown bowl with pitcher. Appellant does not mention these items in his brief on appeal. Therefore, we do not consider the court's order as to these additional items.
Footnote 2 Appellant also testified he was at his cousin's home prior to his return to the residence.