From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Cockerham v. Cockerham
Texas Supreme Court
527 S.W.2d 162 (1975)
Facts
Dorothy Cockerham (plaintiff) and E.A. Cockerham (defendant) were married. Before the marriage, E.A. owned a one-half interest in a 320-acre tract of land on which he operated a dairy farm without the help of Dorothy. During the marriage, E.A. acquired the remaining one-half interest in the land from his brother and put his and Dorothy’s names on the title. During the marriage, Dorothy opened a dress shop. With E.A.’s permission, Dorothy became liable to a creditor (plaintiff) for money used to purchase dresses for inventory. Subsequently, Dorothy sued E.A. for divorce, and the creditor intervened and asked the court to pay Dorothy’s debt using the 320-acre property. The trial court held that one-half of the land was E.A.’s separate property because he acquired this half before the marriage and that the remaining half was community property because it was acquired during the marriage. The trial court held that the creditor could reach only E.A.’s community-property interest in the 320-acre property. Moreover, because Dorothy did not help run the dairy farm, the trial court held that it was under E.A.’s sole management and therefore was not liable for Dorothy’s dress-shop debts. The court of appeals affirmed. The creditor appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
Dissent (Reavley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
