Luke Wayne Harrison v. Bonny Caye Harrison--Appeal from County Court at Law of Washington County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 31, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-09-00470-CV
LUKE WAYNE HARRISON, Appellant
V.
BONNY CAYE HARRISON, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Washington County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CCL5757
CONCURRING OPINION
This court correctly holds that the trial court did not err in awarding a one-half
interest in the Burton property to appellee Bonny Caye Harrison as her separate property;
however, the court need not and should not discuss what evidence is necessary to rebut
the presumption that appellant Luke Wayne Harrison intended to gift this property
interest to Bonny.
When a spouse uses separate-property consideration to pay for land acquired
during the marriage and title to the land is taken in the name of both spouses, it is
presumed the spouse purchasing the property intended the interest placed in the other
spouse to be a gift. Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W.2d 162, 168 (Tex. 1975). This
presumption, however, can be rebutted by evidence clearly establishing there was no
intention to make a gift. Id. Luke used his separate property to buy the Burton property
during marriage, and title to the land was taken in the names of both Luke and Bonny.
Therefore, there was a presumption that Luke intended a gift to Bonny of a one-half
interest in the Burton property. See id. If Luke did not rebut this presumption, then the
trial court did not err in finding that Luke intended to gift this property interest to Bonny.
If Luke did rebut this presumption, there still is legally sufficient evidence to support the
trial court’s finding that Luke intended to gift this property interest to Bonny.1 Therefore,
this court need not address whether the presumption of gift was rebutted, and the
majority’s discussion of this issue constitutes obiter dicta.
The majority states that the cases are inconsistent as to what constitutes “evidence
clearly establishing there was no intention to make a gift” such that the presumption is
rebutted.
Id.
However, research reveals no inconsistency in cases either from the
Supreme Court of Texas or this court. See id.; Carter v. Crater, 736 S.W.2d 775, 781
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). To the extent cases from other courts
of appeals conflict with cases from the Supreme Court of Texas and this court, this court
must follow the latter binding precedent. See Chase Home Fin., L.L.C. v. Cal W.
Reconveyance Corp., 309 S.W.3d 619, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no
pet.). If rebuttal of the presumption were necessary to the disposition of this appeal, a
discussion of any conflicting opinions from other courts of appeals might be warranted.
However, given the diverse fact patterns and types of testimony with which parties might
try to rebut the presumption and given that this issue is not necessary to determine the
appeal, the better course is to leave this issue for another day.
1
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding, indulging every
reasonable inference that would support the finding, crediting favorable evidence if a reasonable
factfinder could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not, the
evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to find that Luke intended to gift this
property interest to Bonny. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005).
2
For this reason, I respectfully decline to join the majority opinion, but I concur in
the court’s judgment.
/s/
Kem Thompson Frost
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Frost, and Seymore. (Anderson, J., majority).
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
