## Facts

- Gary Moore and Caroline F. Moore became engaged in April 2004 and married on June 25, 2004.
- Before marriage, Gary proposed a premarital agreement, describing it as protection for Caroline from his financial risks.
- Gary’s longtime business attorney drafted the agreement; he did not disclose a conflict despite his ongoing representation of Gary.
- Gary offered to pay for Caroline’s counsel but limited her choice to a lawyer located next to Gary’s attorney; Caroline met that lawyer about nine days before the wedding.
- Caroline’s lawyer identified omissions concerning values of Gary’s assets; revisions added an asset schedule but omitted asset values.
- The final version was presented near the wedding; Caroline could not reach her lawyer to review it and was told (falsely, per Caroline) that her lawyer had approved the final changes.
- Caroline signed the agreement on the wedding day; she later learned her lawyer had not reviewed the final version.
- About three years later, Gary filed for divorce and sought to enforce the premarital agreement; Caroline challenged enforceability, including on the ground that she did not sign voluntarily.
- The trial court bifurcated proceedings, held a two-day trial on enforceability, found the agreement not voluntarily signed, and declared it unenforceable.
- In a later trial on property division, the court valued seven community-owned business entities at $2,798,246.06 and awarded Caroline $1,399,123.03 as her community interest.
- Gary appealed the final decree.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that Caroline did not voluntarily sign the premarital agreement, making it unenforceable under Texas Family Code § 4.006(a)(1).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in valuing seven community business entities and awarding Caroline $1,399,123.03 as her interest.
3. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by failing to make more particularized findings on the values of community assets.
4. Whether awarding appellate attorney’s fees without expressly conditioning them on success on appeal was reversible error.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the divorce decree in all respects.
- Sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Caroline did not sign the premarital agreement voluntarily; the agreement was unenforceable.
- The valuation of the seven business entities and the related award to Caroline were supported by the evidence and were not an abuse of discretion.
- The findings were adequate for appellate review; any lack of additional detail did not require reversal.
- The award of appellate attorney’s fees without an explicit “successful appeal” condition was not reversible error, particularly given affirmance.

## Legal Principles

- A premarital agreement is unenforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves she did not sign it voluntarily. Tex. Fam. Code § 4.006(a)(1).
- Voluntariness is assessed from the surrounding circumstances as a whole; relevant considerations include timing near the wedding, access to independent counsel, adequacy of financial disclosure, and misrepresentations affecting the decision to sign.
- Appellate review of a voluntariness finding is deferential to the trial court’s credibility determinations and reasonable inferences.
- Community-property division and related valuation determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; supported valuations will be upheld.
- Findings of fact must be sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review; deficiencies that do not affect the ability to review or the outcome are not reversible error.
- An appellate attorney’s fee award is not reversible solely for lacking an explicit condition of success where the complained-of condition does not affect the affirmed judgment.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s determination that the premarital agreement was unenforceable because Caroline did not execute it voluntarily, and it also upheld the valuation and division of community business interests, rejecting challenges to the adequacy of findings and to the form of the appellate fee award.


Moore v. Moore, 383 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied)