## Facts

- James Terrence Hourigan (husband) and Sally Nash Hourigan (wife) married on February 26, 1956, and separated on June 6, 1979.
- They had one child, a daughter born in September 1971 (eight years old at trial).
- The husband sued for divorce on insupportability and abandonment; the wife filed a cross-action on insupportability.
- Evidence at trial supported that the wife abandoned the husband and the child.
- The trial court granted the divorce and appointed the husband as managing conservator; custody was not challenged on appeal.
- The wife testified she could not afford monthly child-support payments.
- The husband’s net monthly income as an engineer was about $1,415.36; the wife’s net monthly income as a secretary was about $720.00. Both were in good health.
- The trial court estimated the cost of raising the child to majority at about $46,000 and structured the community-property division in light of the husband’s support obligation.
- Community property awarded to the husband included:
  - The homestead (about $27,800).
  - Household goods (about $2,100).
  - A 1974 Toronado (about $1,800).
  - A $500 U.S. bond.
  - $4,300 from a savings account.
  - A pension plan (about $5,720).
  - A rental home (net value about $19,000), to be administered by him in support of the child; when the duty of support ended, the rental home was to be sold and the wife was to receive the first $10,000 of the cash proceeds.
- Community property awarded to the wife included a 1977 Aspen, her personal property, and the deferred $10,000 interest from the future sale of the rental home.
- The decree required the child to be named beneficiary of four insurance policies and required the husband to pay the premiums.
- The decree also required the husband to pay transportation expenses for the child to visit the wife in Alaska.
- No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or filed.
- The wife appealed with a single complaint: that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the community estate.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion under Texas Family Code § 3.63 by making an unequal division of the community property in light of the husband’s child-support obligations, the parties’ income disparity, and evidence that the wife abandoned the family?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce decree.
- The appellate court held the wife failed to show the community-property division was so unjust as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
- In the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the appellate court presumed the trial court considered the full circumstances of the parties, and it viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the husband.

## Legal Principles

- Texas Family Code § 3.63 (now codified at § 7.001) requires the trial court to divide the parties’ estate in a manner the court deems “just and right,” with due regard for each party and any children of the marriage.
- A “just and right” division does not require an equal division; the trial court has wide discretion, and an appellate court reverses only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
- In determining a just-and-right division, the trial court may consider many factors, including disparity of incomes or earning capacities and the parties’ financial obligations, including support for a minor child.
- When a divorce rests on both no-fault and fault grounds, the trial court may consider fault in the breakup of the marriage (including abandonment) when dividing community property.
- When no findings of fact or conclusions of law are filed, the reviewing court presumes the trial court resolved fact issues in a way that supports the judgment.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals affirmed the unequal community-property division because Texas law gives the trial court broad discretion to reach a “just and right” result, and the record supported considering the husband’s continuing duty to support the child, the parties’ income disparity, and evidence that the wife abandoned the husband and child, especially given the lack of findings requiring the appellate court to presume support for the trial court’s judgment.


Hourigan v. Hourigan, 635 S.W.2d 556 (1981)