This lengthy case addresses many diverse issues, including divorce jurisdiction over Mexican citizens who own a home in San Antonio and whose son attends school there and includes numerous examples of how not to object or preserve error regarding jury questions or evidence. However, this case also provides another example of a trial court pretending a spouse has a phantom asset when a large cash payment cannot be explained. The husband owned a business along with a friend. The friend invested $195,737.23 and the husband soon thereafter withdrew $195,000 and even the company’s accountant could not explain the transaction. The trial court valued the husband’s interest in the business as if the unexplained withdrawal had not happened and included the $195,000 as a separate asset for the husband. The court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
Nieto v. Nieto, No. 04-11-00807-Cv (Tex. App. – San Antonio 5/1/2013).