Theodore (Husband) and Janelle (Wife) Landry married in January 2003, and Wife filed for divorce in 2017.¹ Husband opened two Charles Schwab investment accounts before the marriage, in 1992 and 1995, and he designated a certified public accountant, Bryan Rice, to testify as an expert that they remained his separate property.² Using a tracing analysis of monthly statements from January 2003 to June 2019, Rice concluded the funds stayed identifiable as Husband's separate property, testifying that the accounts did not commingle with community assets except for reinvestments and that the community withdrew the interest and dividends "as fast" as they were earned to fund community expenses.³ Rice did not consider four months of statements from July to October 2018, which are in the trial record, and he testified that those statements would not have materially affected his conclusions.⁴ Wife offered no contrary evidence about the two accounts, and her rebuttal expert was excluded as untimely designated.⁵

After a two-day bench trial the trial court signed a divorce decree on March 5, 2020, finding that the two accounts were Husband's separate property.¹ The court of appeals reversed as to the accounts, reasoning that because Rice did not review the four months of statements Husband had not adequately traced them, and this Court reversed in Landry v. Landry, 687 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. 2024), because the statements were in the record, and remanded for a new sufficiency analysis.² On remand the court of appeals did not perform that analysis, stating that whether the statements support Rice's assumptions is not a matter it could determine, and again reversed.³ The vehicle in this Court is Husband's second petition for review; the Court granted it and decided the case by per curiam opinion without oral argument on March 20, 2026.⁴

Second petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) in a divorce case, granted and decided by per curiam opinion without oral argument on March 20, 2026.⁵

Husband presents two issues:¹ 1. Whether the court of appeals misapplied the proper tracing burden of proof and so effectively changed the applicable tracing law in Texas. 2. Whether, on remand, the court of appeals failed to do what this Court instructed and, in one sentence and without analysis, rubber-stamped its previous opinion.

Wife frames the issues as whether the court of appeals complied with the Court's mandate, whether it correctly applied Texas law on tracing separate property, and whether the case is important to Texas jurisprudence.²

A trial court abuses its discretion in characterizing property as separate without legally sufficient evidence, and where the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence, legal-sufficiency review considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that it was true.¹ Property possessed during or on dissolution of marriage is presumed community, and a party claiming it as separate must trace and clearly identify it as such by clear and convincing evidence.²

Whether the court of appeals followed the mandate and applied the correct tracing burden.

Husband (Petitioner): The court of appeals originally reversed on the erroneous belief that four statements were missing, failed to correct that error as this Court directed, and issued a remand opinion that was almost entirely about the adequacy of Wife's original briefing and included no sufficiency analysis, in effect changing Texas tracing law.¹

Wife (Respondent): The court of appeals did what the Court asked, reviewing the entire record to determine whether Husband proved by clear and convincing evidence that the accounts were separate, its opinion is in line with current Texas law and raises no significant issue of Texas jurisprudence, and Husband relies on misrepresentations of the record.²

Husband argued that the court of appeals failed to follow this Court's mandate and misapplied the tracing burden in a way that effectively changes Texas tracing law.¹ Wife answered that the case raises no significant issue of Texas law.²

None

Holding

There was no lawful basis for the court of appeals to reject Husband's unrebutted evidence, including his expert's testimony and the full record of account statements, that the two accounts were his separate property, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, the trial court could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that the accounts are separate property.¹

Reasoning

The court of appeals erred twice: first by misreading the record, and then on remand by summarily rejecting the unrebutted evidence on the law.² Property is presumed community and separate character must be established by clear and convincing evidence through tracing, which may be done with documentary evidence such as bank records, and trial courts have wide discretion in dividing the estate.³ The fact-finder is the sole judge of witnesses' credibility and the weight of their testimony, and here the trial court heard extensive, unrebutted expert testimony from a qualified expert who traced the accounts through sixteen years of statements, which Wife did not challenge as to his qualifications.⁴ The four statements Rice did not consider were a mere two percent of the total, were in the record before the trial court, and Rice testified they would not have changed his conclusions, so the court of appeals improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court's and did not perform the new sufficiency analysis the Court had directed.⁵ The Court chose to make itself the final stop for this litigation by rendering judgment.⁶

Disposition

Petition for review granted without oral argument, the court of appeals' judgment reversed, and judgment rendered reinstating the trial court's judgment.⁷

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.