## Facts

- Delia Leal (wife) and Hector Leal (husband) were married.
- Delia filed for divorce, and the case was tried to the court (non-jury) in Texas.
- The trial court granted the divorce and divided the parties’ community property.
- During the pendency of the divorce, Delia claimed Hector spent community funds improperly, including on a girlfriend, and that the trial court should account for that spending in the property division.
- Delia testified generally about Hector’s alleged dissipation of community funds but did not produce definite proof of the amounts spent or how much of the community estate, if any, was dissipated.
- Hector denied improper dissipation and testified that funds spent while the divorce was pending were used for living and business expenses.
- After the court announced its property division, Delia requested the court order Hector to repay money she claimed he spent; the court responded that it had made a fair decision.
- The decree included an award of $3,000 in attorney’s fees to Delia.
- Delia appealed, asserting the court abused its discretion in dividing the community estate by failing to consider Hector’s alleged spending during the divorce.
- Hector cross-appealed, contending there was no evidence to support the $3,000 attorney’s-fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion in dividing the community estate by failing to take into account community funds Delia alleged Hector spent or dissipated during the pendency of the divorce, where the evidence was conflicting and Delia offered no definite proof of amounts or uses.
2. Whether there was any evidence to support the trial court’s award of $3,000 in attorney’s fees to Delia.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s division of the community estate, holding Delia did not show a clear abuse of discretion.
- The court distinguished cases where a spouse admitted dissipation or concealment of community property; here, the evidence was at most conflicting, and Delia provided no definite proof of the amounts allegedly dissipated.
- The court further concluded the record permitted an inference that the trial court considered any dissipation it found when making the division, particularly in light of the post-ruling exchange in which the court stated it had made a fair decision.
- The court sustained Hector’s cross-point and reversed the portion of the judgment awarding Delia $3,000 in attorney’s fees because the record contained no evidence supporting that fee award.
- The judgment was affirmed in part (property division) and reversed in part (attorney’s fees).

## Legal Principles

- In a divorce decree, the trial court must divide the parties’ estate in a manner it deems “just and right,” having due regard for the rights of each party and any children of the marriage. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.63 (as cited in the opinion).
- A community-property division need not be equal; appellate review is limited to whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
- A spouse complaining that the property division failed to account for alleged dissipation must present evidence sufficient to show dissipation and its effect on the community estate; generalized testimony without definite proof of amounts or uses may be inadequate to show abuse of discretion, especially where the other spouse denies wrongdoing.
- Cases involving admitted squandering or concealment of community funds (such as where a spouse admits giving away, gambling away, or hiding funds) are materially different from cases with only conflicting testimony and no proof of amounts.
- An attorney’s-fee award in a divorce must be supported by evidence in the record (for example, proof of the amount and basis for the fees); a fee award with no evidentiary support cannot stand on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals upheld the community-property division because Delia did not provide definite proof that Hector dissipated specific amounts of community funds, the testimony was conflicting, and the record allowed an inference that the trial court considered any dissipation it found when making a “just and right” division; however, the court reversed the $3,000 attorney’s-fee award because no evidence supported that award.


Leal v. Leal, 628 S.W.2d 168 (1982)