In Texas, a person can request reimbursement if community (marital) funds were used solely to benefit the other person’s separate property. The person asking for reimbursement must prove that the shared funds were specifically used for the other person’s separate estate. The idea behind this is fairness—without repayment, the other person would be unfairly enriched using community assets.
When deciding on reimbursement claims, Texas courts focus on fairness and look at all the relevant details of the situation. This includes considering the rights of both spouses and any children affected by the divorce. Even if one spouse’s separate property clearly benefited from marital funds, the court can still deny reimbursement if it believes that repayment would be unfair given the overall circumstances.
Winning a reimbursement claim is not always easy. For example, in Montemayor v. Montemayor (2025) case, one spouse tried to recover marital funds that were allegedly used to benefit the other’s separate estate—but the claim was denied. Let us take a closer look at what happened in that case.
Facts of the Case
Notably, the incidents described by the husband occurred well before the wife filed for divorce. Therefore, any alleged misuse or misappropriation of assets happened while the couple was still legally married. According to the husband, in 2016, the wife sold several pieces of marital property and withdrew money from a joint bank account—actions that, he claims, provided no benefit to him. The divorce proceedings, however, did not begin until several years later.
At trial, the husband sought reimbursement for these assets, arguing that the wife deliberately used them to benefit her separate estate. He requested compensation during the division of property. The trial court denied his claim, and he subsequently appealed the decision.
Ruling and Discussion
The husband lost again at the appellate court level. One of the biggest issues he faced was the timing of the events he complained about. Since the wife allegedly took these assets back in 2016—well before the divorce was even filed—she had a strong argument that the assets were not taken just to benefit her alone. Instead, as she explained, those actions could have simply been part of their normal married life at that time.
The court seemed to view the husband’s claim as a kind of “retroactive” or even retaliatory move—more about trying to get a bigger piece of the marital estate now that the divorce was underway, rather than a legitimate complaint about wrongdoing at the time. That is why timing is so important in these cases. If the wife had done the same things after the divorce was filed, he might have had a solid claim. But because everything happened while they were still married, the court did not believe she had actually taken anything from him that justified reimbursement.
Contact the Goldsberry Portz Divorce & Family Lawyers, PLLC, for Additional Information
If readers want to know more about high value reimbursement claims, the principle of equitable distribution in Texas, property division in general in Texas, or any other related matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at Goldsberry Portz Divorce & Family Lawyers, PLLC, today by calling 281-485-3500.