## Facts

- Kathleen Byrnes and William Thomas Byrnes married in 1978.
- In 1997 William told Kathleen he wanted a divorce and moved out.
- Two days later, at a restaurant meeting, Kathleen presented a document titled “Agreement Incident to Divorce,” drafted with her attorney’s assistance.
- William had not seen the document before the meeting, was not represented by counsel, read it there, and signed it; it was witnessed and notarized.
- Kathleen filed for divorce and sought enforcement of the signed agreement as the property division; William filed a general denial and repudiated the agreement as unfair and involuntary and alleged fraud, duress, lack of consideration, and unconscionability.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial focused on division of the marital estate, including treatment of William’s military retirement benefits.
- The trial court refused to enforce the document as a mediated settlement agreement, requested proposed property divisions, and ultimately adopted William’s proposed division in the decree.
- Kathleen appealed, arguing the trial court was required to enforce the signed document either as an agreement incident to divorce or as a partition agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the signed “Agreement Incident to Divorce” was binding under Texas Family Code § 7.006 such that the trial court was required to adopt it in the divorce decree.
2. Whether the document was enforceable as a partition or exchange agreement of community property under the Texas Family Code.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting the agreement and instead dividing the community estate under its own “just and right” determination.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce decree.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enforce the signed document as an agreement incident to divorce under § 7.006.
- The document did not qualify as an enforceable partition or exchange agreement.
- The trial court acted within its authority to reject the proposed agreement and enter a different “just and right” division of the community estate.

## Legal Principles

- A written spousal agreement concerning property division in divorce is not automatically binding; the trial court must determine whether it is “just and right” under Texas Family Code § 7.006 before incorporating it into the decree.
- A trial court has broad discretion in dividing the community estate, and appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- A document that merely allocates property in contemplation of divorce, without clear language converting community property into separate property, is not a partition or exchange agreement.
- Circumstances surrounding execution (including lack of counsel, lack of prior review, and prompt repudiation with fairness-based objections) may support a trial court’s decision not to approve an incident-to-divorce agreement.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s refusal to enforce a signed “Agreement Incident to Divorce,” holding that § 7.006 permits rejection of such an agreement when the court does not find it “just and right,” and that the document’s form and language did not establish a partition or exchange of community property.


Byrnes v. Byrnes, 19 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000)