pjc-family-2024-lib

D ISSOLUTION OF M ARRIAGE

PJC 201.4

nificant property, the court should consider separate trials for these questions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 174(b); Winfield v. Renfro , 821 S.W.2d 640, 652–53 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). If all the probable questions are tried together, it will be necessary to submit multiple sets of contingent questions concerning ownership and characterization of property; the jury will be directed to answer one of these sets depending on their answers to whether the parties are married and, if so, the date on which they were married. For example, if the jury answers that the parties were mar ried as of a certain date, a particular item of property may clearly be community prop erty; if, on the other hand, the jury answers in the negative for that date, the jury might be required to determine whether that same item of property is the separate property of the purchaser, the parties are co-owners of the property, or the purchaser holds the property in constructive trust for the other party. With multiple items of property and multiple dates of possible informal marriage, the number of questions may increase almost geometrically. The efficient use of court and jury time also militates in favor of dividing these issues into separate trials. The litigants must advance multiple theories and produce evidence supporting those theories when so many contingencies are involved. On the other hand, if the determination of the existence of the marriage is made first, only the evidence supporting the applicable theory must be introduced. Proceeding after death of a spouse. If the proceeding is brought after the death of one or both spouses, replace the word “Are” in Question 1 in PJC 201.4B and PJC 201.4C with the word “Were.”

39