## Facts

- Victor Bradley and Margaret Bradley married on July 31, 1982, and were married for about four years.
- Five days before the wedding (July 26, 1982), they signed a premarital agreement.
- The agreement stated that income from each spouse’s personal efforts would be that spouse’s separate property.
- The agreement also required that, each year during the marriage, the spouses execute a written partition of any community property accumulated during the prior year.
- During the marriage, Victor earned income from his medical practice; Margaret was not employed outside the home.
- The parties never executed the annual written partitions contemplated by the premarital agreement.
- In the divorce decree (July 9, 1986), the trial court construed the premarital agreement as meaning the parties had no community property other than personal effects and treated Victor’s earnings from his medical practice as his separate property.
- Margaret appealed, challenging the trial court’s construction of the premarital agreement and the resulting characterization and division of property.

## Issues

1. Whether the premarital agreement operated as a present, effective partition or exchange that converted Victor’s future earnings from his personal efforts into his separate property, despite the agreement’s requirement of later written partitions.
2. Whether, because the parties never executed the required written partitions during the marriage, Victor’s earnings from his medical practice remained community property.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in making a “just and right” division after treating substantial earnings as separate and finding essentially no community estate.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Texas (Dallas) reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial on property division.
- The premarital agreement did not, by itself, effect a present partition or exchange of future earnings from personal efforts.
- Because the contemplated written partitions were never executed, Victor’s earnings during marriage were community property.
- The trial court’s property division, premised on the conclusion that there was essentially no community estate, could not stand and required a new division consistent with the proper characterization.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during marriage is presumed community property unless a spouse proves separate character under Texas law.
- Spouses (and prospective spouses) may agree to partition or exchange property interests, but a valid partition/exchange must satisfy statutory and constitutional requirements, including a written instrument.
- A premarital agreement that calls for future written partitions generally reflects an intent to partition later; it does not automatically reclassify future earnings as separate property when the specified written partitions never occur.
- A divorce court must divide the community estate in a “just and right” manner; a division based on a material mischaracterization of community property is reversible error and may constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Because the Bradleys never executed the yearly written partitions required by their premarital agreement, Victor’s earnings from his medical practice during the marriage were not converted into separate property and remained community property; the appellate court therefore reversed the divorce property characterization and division and remanded for a new, just and right division based on the correct community-property classification.


Bradley v. Bradley, 725 S.W.2d 503 (1987)