## Facts

- A wife sued her husband for divorce and the case was tried to a jury on special issues, including (1) a recommended proportionate division of the community estate, (2) child support, (3) fair market value of 53 community-property items, and (4) reasonable attorney’s fees for the wife’s counsel.
- The jury found the community estate should be divided 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband and found fair market values for the listed property items.
- The jury also found the husband should pay $1,200 per month in child support and that reasonable attorney’s fees were $20,000 for trial and $2,500 for appeal.
- The trial court entered a divorce judgment that characterized the jury’s answers as “advisory,” ordered $800 per month in child support, and divided the community estate.
- Using the jury’s market values as reflected in the record, the property awarded under the judgment totaled approximately $432,400 to the husband and $155,983 to the wife (about 73.49% to the husband and 26.51% to the wife).
- The judgment did not expressly allocate liabilities, and no findings of fact or conclusions of law explained the basis for the unequal division.
- The wife appealed, arguing primarily that the division was manifestly unfair and that the trial court improperly treated binding jury value findings as advisory; she also challenged the child support reduction and raised attorney’s-fees complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a manifestly unfair division of the community estate and by treating the jury’s fair-market-value findings as advisory rather than binding.
2. Whether the trial court erred by setting child support at $800 rather than the jury’s advisory $1,200, and by failing to make required guideline-related findings.
3. Whether the trial court erred in its handling of the jury’s findings on reasonable attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the community-property division was an abuse of discretion and reversed that portion of the judgment.
- The court held that properly submitted jury findings on the value of community property are binding on the trial court; the trial court erred by treating those value findings as advisory.
- The court held that the jury’s recommended proportionate division of the community estate was advisory only; the ultimate division is for the trial court.
- On child support, the court held the jury’s finding on the amount of child support is advisory only and not binding on the trial court.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion, at least as to the division of the community estate.

## Legal Principles

- In a Texas divorce tried to a jury, jury findings on fact questions such as the value (and status) of marital property, when properly submitted, are binding on the trial court.
- The equitable division of the community estate is committed to the trial court’s discretion; a jury’s recommended percentage split is advisory only.
- Although a community estate need not be divided equally, a materially unequal division must have a reasonable basis in the record; an extreme imbalance without support constitutes an abuse of discretion and an unjust division.
- Under Texas law, the amount of child support found by a jury is advisory only; the trial court sets child support subject to statutory constraints and abuse-of-discretion review.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed a divorce decree’s community-property division because it disregarded binding jury value findings and produced a markedly unequal split without a supported justification; it reaffirmed that percentage division recommendations and child-support amounts found by a jury are advisory, with the final determinations resting with the trial court.


Archambault v. Archambault, 763 S.W.2d 50 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1988)