## Facts

- Jordan Royce Matthews, Jr. (husband) and Carol Kay Matthews (wife) were married and had a son.
- The marriage went through months of severe conflict marked by separation, reconciliation, and renewed separation.
- Jordan accused Carol of drug use and of taking money from a company safe.
- Carol alleged Jordan took their son, prevented her from speaking with him, and threatened custody litigation if she did not sign a community-property partition.
- During June 1980, the parties executed an “Indenture for the Partition of Community Property” (the indenture): Carol signed on June 20, 1980, and Jordan signed on June 21, 1980.
- The indenture assigned title to most community assets to Jordan; in exchange, Carol was released from debts tied to those assets, but she received no assets under the partition.
- Carol had earlier consulted a divorce attorney (Williams) and briefly retained him to prepare a divorce filing; after returning home, she instructed him not to file.
- Shortly before signing the indenture, Carol consulted Williams about the partition; Williams testified he did not recommend for or against signing it.
- A psychotherapist (Gross), who counseled Carol in June 1980, testified Carol appeared confused and distressed during the period when the parties were discussing a separation agreement, and that Jordan spoke of “detectives” pursuing Carol in connection with the alleged theft.
- Carol later filed for divorce and sought a division of the community estate; the trial court granted the divorce, found the indenture void because it was procured by duress, disregarded it in dividing the estate, and awarded attorney’s fees.
- Jordan appealed, challenging the duress finding and the resulting property and fee rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the indenture was procured by duress and was therefore void.
2. Whether, after setting aside the indenture, the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the community estate and awarding attorney’s fees as part of the division.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment.
- It held the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Carol executed the indenture under duress, so the trial court did not err in setting it aside.
- It upheld the community-property division made in the divorce decree after the indenture was treated as void.
- It also upheld the attorney’s-fee award, recognizing that attorney’s fees may be awarded as part of a “just and right” division of the community estate.

## Legal Principles

- Spouses occupy a fiduciary relationship when dealing with community property; transactions between them that heavily favor one spouse are subject to careful judicial review.
- Duress can render an agreement voidable when improper threats or coercion overcome a party’s free agency and leave no reasonable alternative but to sign; threats tied to criminal accusation or child-custody consequences may support a duress finding, depending on the facts.
- In a bench trial, the trial court is the judge of witness credibility and the weight of the evidence; appellate courts defer to reasonable credibility choices and will not substitute their view of disputed facts.
- When a marital partition is set aside, the trial court retains authority under Texas family-law standards to make a “just and right” division of the community estate.
- A trial court may award attorney’s fees to either party as part of the property division (citing Murff v. Murff), and such awards are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

## Conclusion

Matthews v. Matthews affirmed a divorce judgment that declared a spousal community-property partition void for duress, based on evidence of coercive pressure during a period of extreme marital conflict, and it further affirmed the trial court’s resulting “just and right” division of the community estate, including an award of attorney’s fees as part of that division.


Matthews v. Matthews, 725 S.W.2d 275 (1986)