This case involves the dissolution of a relationship between Arnoldo Palacios and Susan Robbins. Arnoldo and Susan met in March , and eventually began living together. Susan contends she and Arnoldo were married by common law by September Arnoldo insists that, although they lived together, they were never common law married. Susan alleges the primary problem in their marriage was Arnoldo's adultery and his tendency to commit violent acts against her.
Their tumultuous relationship ended on August 1, , when Susan filed suit for divorce and lodged claims of fraud and assault against Arnoldo. In fifteen issues on appeal, Arnoldo argues this case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict, and the trial court committed reversible error in several of its rulings.
We reverse and render in part and affirm in part. In his first issue, Arnoldo contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion requesting a separate trial on Susan's claims of fraud and assault.
Arnoldo argues that by allowing the jury to hear all of Susan's claims in the same trial, he was exposed to a "great risk of prejudice. Generally, a trial court has broad discretion to grant or refuse motions for severance or separate trial. Guaranty Fed. Bank v.
Horseshoe Operating Co. Rule 41 governs severance of causes. Rule provides for dividing causes of action for separate trials.
