You are Kneeling, But I am not: Intentional Detrimental Conduct in an Employment Setting and its Effect on the Distribution of the Community Estate


This comment will discuss whether a hypothetical Mrs. Kaepernick has a claim against her husband and how that claim would unfold in a divorce proceeding in Texas. Part II of this comment examines some of the historical background surrounding the development of the community property system and provides a general overview of community property laws among the states that have adopted that system. Part III addresses Texas laws governing community property that would be relevant to Mrs. Kaepernick’s claim. Part IV discusses different claims available to protect the community, such as fraud, waste, and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as remedies available to the injured party and how the courts have applied those remedies. Part V examines case law applying the claims available to an injured spouse. Part VI analyzes Mrs. Kaepernick’s claim against her husband. Finally, Part VII discusses whether Mrs. Kaepernick, or any spouse, should have a claim against his or her partner for intentionally engaging in conduct detrimental to the community and whether it is a judicial or legislative issue.



Community estate, Intentional detrimental conduct in employment setting, Community property, Community claims, Constructive fraud, Breach of fiduciary duty, Actual fraud, Zieba v. Martin, Miller v. Miller


12 Est. Plan. & Cmty. Prop. L. J. 137