Reimbursement in Divorce Proceedings(from recent caselaw)

Reimbursement claims “exist when one or both spouses use property of one marital estate to confer on the property of another marital estate a benefit which, if not repaid, would result in unjust enrichment to the benefited estate.” Tex. Fam. Code § 3.402(a). A spouse seeking reimbursement to a marital estate must prove:

(1)     that the spouse or both spouses used property of the marital estate to confer a benefit on the property of another marital estate;

(2)     the value of the benefit received; and

(3)     that unjust enrichment of the benefited estate will occur if the benefited estate is not required to reimburse the conferring estate.

Tex. Fam. Code § 3.402(b). The party claiming the right of reimbursement has the burden of pleading and proving that the expenditures and improvements were made and that they are reimbursable. Vallone v. Vallone, 644 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex. 1982).

Reimbursements may run from community estate to separate estate, from separate estate to community estate, and from separate estate to separate estate. Alsenz v. Alsenz, 101 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Because reimbursement can only be granted when one estate confers a benefit to another, characterization questions must be answered before knowing whether reimbursement is even a possible claim. See In re Marriage of Brookshire, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 12-24-00322-CV, 2026 WL 1593277, at 18 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2026, no pet. h.) (citing In re Marriage of Nash, 644 S.W.3d 683, 708 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2022, no pet.) (property transferred to an LLC is no longer community or separate property); In re Marriage of Soma, No. 12-25-00309-CV, 2026 WL 1983349, at 7–*8 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2026, no pet. h.) (reimbursement not available to reimburse the community estate from the community estate).

The “value” of the benefit received could be dollar-for-dollar (e.g., when one estate pays down the debt of another estate); however, if one estate enhances another, any reimbursement must be for that enhanced valued. In re Marriage of Cruey, No. 12-24-00159-CV, 2025 WL 2416806, at *9 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). Reimbursement “is not merely a balancing of the ledgers between the marital estates,” but the court has broad discretion to consider any offsetting factors when valuing the reimbursement claim. McCartney v. McCartney, 720 S.W.3d 789, 804 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, no pet.) (quoting Penick v. Penick, 783 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex. 1988)).

Because reimbursement is an equitable claim, a court is “bound to look at all the facts and circumstances and determine what is fair, just, and equitable.” Penick, 783 S.W.2d at 197. The trial court’s discretion in evaluating a claim for reimbursement is as broad as its discretion to effect a just and proper division of the community marital estate. McCartney, 720 S.W.3d at 798. Claims for reimbursement are generally governed by Section 3.402 of the Texas Family Code, although the statutory claims are not exclusive. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.402.

An appellate court recently held that if the sale of a spouse’s separate property causes the community estate to be liable for capital gains taxes, the community estate could be entitled to reimbursement. Brookshire, 2026 WL 1593277,[1] at *26 (citing Penick, 783 S.W.2d at 196; Jensen v. Jensen, 665 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Tex. 1984)).

The 14th District Court held that in signing a partition and exchange agreement that did not explicitly waive reimbursement claims, the husband retained the right to raise a reimbursement claim in the divorce proceedings. McCartney v. McCartney, 720 S.W.3d 789, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, no pet.). In its opinion, the court reviewed the language of the agreement, which did not mention reimbursement claims. 720 S.W.3d at 800. The Family Code permits waiver of reimbursement claims in martial property agreements; however, to release a claim effectively, the agreement must mention the claim being released. Id. at 799 (citing Tex. Fam. Code 3.410; Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931, 938 (Tex. 1991).

[1] The husband in this suit was granted an extension of time to file a petition in the Texas Supreme Court, and the petition is due tomorrow, August 19, 2026.