## Facts

- John Dee Andrews (husband) and Cynthia Mae Andrews (wife) married and accumulated community property during the marriage.
- John largely managed the couple’s community assets and made several unsuccessful investments using community funds, resulting in losses to the community estate.
- Cynthia was aware of some of the investments and, at times, helped write the monthly checks connected to them.
- Cynthia filed for divorce in Travis County; after a bench trial, the court granted the divorce, named Cynthia managing conservator of the parties’ infant daughter, and ordered John to pay child support (not challenged on appeal).
- The community estate included various assets, such as automobiles, retirement interests, household goods, bank and savings deposits, insurance policies, a mineral lease, a small stock account, and real property (including property at 5010 Powder River Drive).
- A major disputed asset was the marital residence at 2800 Hubbard Circle in Austin; John claimed it was his separate property.
- The divorce decree imposed a constructive trust in Cynthia’s favor on an undivided one-half interest in the Hubbard Circle residence.
- As part of the property division, the decree also required John to execute a $45,000 promissory note payable to Cynthia, secured by liens on certain personal and real property awarded to John as his separate property.
- John appealed only the portions of the decree addressing the constructive trust and the note/lien arrangement, arguing (among other points) that the community’s claim should be limited to reimbursement and that his separate property should not be encumbered to secure the award.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by imposing a constructive trust for Cynthia on an undivided one-half interest in the Hubbard Circle residence that John claimed as separate property, rather than limiting any community claim to reimbursement.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering John to execute a $45,000 promissory note to Cynthia and securing it with liens on property awarded to John as separate property as part of a disproportionate “just and right” division.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce decree’s challenged property provisions.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in making a disproportionate division of the community estate based on evidence of John’s waste and mismanagement of community funds.
- The court upheld the constructive trust awarding Cynthia a one-half equitable interest in the Hubbard Circle residence.
- The court upheld the requirement that John execute the $45,000 promissory note and that it be secured by liens on property awarded to him, including property characterized as his separate property.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas divorce court has broad discretion to divide the parties’ estate in a “just and right” manner; an equal split is not required, and appellate review is for clear abuse of discretion.
- A spouse’s waste, dissipation, or mismanagement of community assets may justify a disproportionate award to the other spouse to account for the depleted community estate.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that may be imposed in a divorce property division to prevent unjust enrichment when legal title does not reflect a spouse’s equitable interest under the circumstances.
- Although a court may not divest a spouse of separate-property title, it may impose liens on separate property to secure payment obligations awarded in the divorce as part of achieving a just and right division.

## Conclusion

Andrews v. Andrews upheld a trial court’s decision to award the wife a disproportionate share of the marital estate after evidence showed the husband’s waste and mismanagement of community funds. The court affirmed both the constructive trust granting the wife a one-half interest in the marital residence and the requirement that the husband execute a $45,000 promissory note secured by liens on property awarded to him, concluding these measures were permissible tools to carry out a just and right division.


Andrews v. Andrews, 677 S.W.2d 171 (1984)